“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
We continue to mourn the untimely passing of our beloved compatriot DePat, known in real life as Susie Sampson, and also as author Patricia Holden.
Until we have a dedicated author for the Tuesday daily open thread, I will be posting “placeholders” like this one, which may or may not be spiced up with additional content.
Gudthots will take DePat’s old Thursday daily open thread.
Please notify me in advance if you would like to post anything in lieu of the Tuesday placeholder. We welcome all content – the topic doesn’t matter.
W
Some Thoughts on Art, Science & Religion
I’ve promised that I would talk about certain things dealing with science and religion, but in the process, I realized that I would likely need a “pre-talk” for reasons I’ll make clear.
I have also been engaged in activities in the art world, which made me realize that “my liberal friends” are in a very similar situation to us – and yet it’s almost unknown to people here. I want to talk bout that, too, because it might help people to see something analogous to our own problems afflicting somebody else.
SO – let me get to the point in a few paragraphs, if I can.
I want to start off by addressing my fellow believers in God.
I believe something very simple, which you likely agree with, but which may seem baffling to some.
I believe that it is more important to be right about the existence of God, than to be right about anything else, particularly the worldly truths of what we call “science”.
There are many reasons behind this, including numerous citations from both the Old and New Testaments, as well as a basic acceptance of the central message of Jesus Christ. As a follower of Christ, I not only believe the following as a consequence of accepting his authority on the topic – I find it “true in practice” as a biblically consistent part of His teachings.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Some might say to me “Who are you, to be accepting this for any reason BUT authority?” – To which I would reply “I’m a human who God made skeptical – so I test everything!”
Anyway, my immediate point is that I am going to be talking about things which might conflict with other people’s deeply held religious beliefs. If so, then I invite you to ignore me, and to ignore what I will have to say. I will not be offended. While some may believe that testing belief strengthens it, others do not, and I refuse to pick a side in that fight. I invite YOU to make a choice – hear me or ignore me.
Inside you is a child, and I don’t want that child to stumble.
OK? Good! Let’s move on.
One of the things that I have noticed with my “liberal art friends” (some of whom may be “liberal arts friends” as well) is that they have ALL LEFT TWITTER/X. They are all on BlueSky now. They have chosen a walled garden – a plantation – where they can censor each other off the platform as hard and unfairly as they want.
They are now fully in an echo chamber, and they can no longer hear us.
I am not actually sure what needs to be done next. X is much more peaceful, now that so many leftists have left.
The main thing which I have noticed among these BlueSky leftists, is the almost supernatural effect that the “trans narrative” has on them. It is a necessary virtue signal that MUST be adhered to by even the most open-minded and otherwise scientific BlueSky leftists.
This is where I begin to see a great truth. Almost everybody has “science” they don’t like and don’t believe, but which other people, often a majority, do believe.
In fact, it gets even finer. BIOLOGY bothers almost everybody. And even worse, there are people who come up with bad solutions to the “bother” – many people are then attracted to the bad solutions – and together they form what one could call “pseudoscience movements”.
It’s a mess – am I right?
Well, I will do my best.
Anyway, please stay tuned for more some interesting science. Which I invite you to ignore, or even suggest you ignore, if questioning your beliefs gets in the way of your salvation.
We continue to mourn the untimely passing of our beloved compatriot DePat, known in real life as Susie Sampson, and also as author Patricia Holden.
Until we have a dedicated author for the Tuesday daily open thread, I will be posting “placeholders” like this one, which may or may not be spiced up with additional content.
Gudthots will take DePat’s old Thursday daily open thread.
Please notify me in advance if you would like to post anything in lieu of the Tuesday placeholder. We welcome all content – the topic doesn’t matter.
W
Get Smart – Buy a Globe!
When I was trying to get somebody to take DePat’s Tuesday open thread – meaning THIS thread – and there were no takers, I toyed with the idea of turning this open into a kind of comedy hour. The satire would be brutal – brutal enough that somebody would quickly decide to shut me up by volunteering to take the open. OR SO I HOPED!
I was going to call myself Flat Earth Wolf, and I planned to ferociously but facetiously advocate everything that most people here disagreed with, if not depise. Flat earth, no virus, deep state Trump, woke right – the worse, the better!
Yeah, at first it sounded kinda fun, but then I realized that it would just drive people away. And even I wouldn’t enjoy it.
SIGH.
Eventually, I just decided to use this open to post my own honest opinions about things. The beauty of that is, if somebody disagrees with me, they only have to volunteer to take the open to shut me up – but I don’t have to be funny or interesting, which is work.
I can just spout off and state my piece – and that is exactly what I’m going to do!
Now, as you have seen, I’ve spent a lot of time being “fair” to flat earth, by making sure people who want to post any side of any debate can do so here – and that is still happening. Most of the time, I’m encouraging people to post views that may oppose not only my own views, but everybody else’s, too.
But it’s time to be more….. how shall I say….. “complete” about things.
I try to be “nice” about a lot of “science” that “has issues”. I just try to smile and not pull out any deadly weapons of argumentation.
No serrated blades. No 100-round clips. No razor-studded baseball bats. Maybe a hanky. Yes. A perfumed hanky. Cough. Cough. Pardon me!
WELL – NOT TODAY, AND NOT RIGHT HERE, AND NOT RIGHT NOW.
¿Comprende?
Pardon me for just one moment. I’m gonna be tougher about science. Because we have to be tough. We are up against a very organized force.
The Yellow Berets, also known as Public Health Service trainees, were a group of physicians who participated in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Associate Training Program during the Vietnam War era. They were often derogatorily referred to as “Yellow Berets” by supporters of the war who viewed them as avoiding military service.
We are up against some really bad people, who are fully prepared to tell any lie for their purposes. So this opposing army – OUR army – can’t tolerate weak, wrong, and misled science in the forward combat positions. SURE – if you want to work on the base back in safe territory, you can believe all the bad and broken science you want. But if you want to get out in front, you have to subject your own biases to the relentless sharpening forces of TRUTH – and in particular EVIDENCE.
Some things are very certain out in the front lines. One of them is that this planet is a sphere, roughly.
NOW – like most other professional scientists, I haz science skilz in a lot of different areas, because most true scientists are like that. We don’t turn off the science when we walk out of school or job – and our opinions can be particularly relevant in looking at other people’s “expert” stuff, and asking terrible, sharp, venomous questions that the “experts” in those areas are hiding from, or pretending don’t exist.
Much “organization” in current, problematic, sick, “mainstream” science is done to insulate compromised insiders from pesky intelligent outsiders.
Decorum, you know. That’s it. Decorum.
Well, too bad.
BUT we have to hold ourselves to the same revolutionary standards.
Yadig? Of course! What’s good for vaccines, is good for “no virus”, “flat earth”, and many other things.
Globe Earth Wolf has a recommendation that will ultimately test your faith in God, by beating on it. He’s gonna BEAT your armor until it is HARDER, and the first beat-down is that you need to buy an actual globe and STUDY IT.
They’re CHEAP AS DIRT. Most are made in CHYYYNA. But you still have to buy one. I don’t care where it’s made. BUY A GLOBE. And if you already have one, pull it out of the closet, attic or basement.
Buy one at a garage sale, if you have to.
I recommend buying a globe that is at least 12 inches in diameter, and is mounted so that the tilt of Earth’s axis relative to the sun is clearly demonstrable.
Blue oceans which are highly differentiated in color from the land masses are very helpful. Political boundaries are somewhat immaterial, although they do help you LOCATE things more quickly and precisely, and if they are current, the globe can be used to increase your current geopolitical understanding. On the other hand, a vintage globe can be useful for more historical understanding. In either case, I recommend blue oceans, because some vintage globes hide this physically useful truth, by making everything somewhat off-white, sepia and tan, simply to look good on furniture, as opposed to BEATING ON YOUR BRAIN, which is my purpose.
What I am doing is actually a stupid trick from science – a silly secret among the “top men”. And top women, but let’s not get TOO bogged down in DEI.
You see, MODELS – simple physical models – are behind so much of the best science and so many of the best scientists. I have watched this throughout my entire life, and it’s hilarious. Good models are what won Watson and Crick the Nobel Dynamite & Bankster Prize for DNA, and Doudna and Charpentier the same for CRISPR-Cas9. Good models are how all the best work on C60/Buckyballs/Fullerenes was done.
Good models are how stereochemistry was explained in the late 19th century. Good models are – over and over – how organic chemistry and then biochemistry were worked out in the 19th and 20th centuries.
When I went to school with a bunch of scary smart people, I quickly realized that I could use my cheap plastic molecular model set, which I was ironically forced to buy, but wisely chose to actually use, to find all sorts of science which had apparently evaded older students and even our professors for years. Simple, stupid, cheap, plastic and aluminum, “straws and jacks” (not even balls and sticks) was all it took to figure out realities that would ALWAYS show up in chemical behavior, spectroscopy, and quantum mechanical calculations.
I would SHOW PEOPLE this stuff with models – and you could always tell the winners from the losers by how fast they would start using their own “required but never used” model set to figure things out – by how carefully (or stupidly and carelessly) they would cut their little bonds – by how carefully or carelessly they would grab the right “jack” to get the right angles at the atoms – by how strongly they would reason past the limitations of the cheap models – and by how quickly they would spend some of their hard-earned but very limited cash to buy a SECOND or THIRD model set, to make even bigger and better models possible.
I am doing the exact same thing here, to make you smarter – to make YOU a winner.
Because we can’t have too much winning if you aren’t on the same page as Trump, as well as the historical patriots who really did walk this SPHERICAL planet and built this great civilization – and GOD – who made this WORKING BALL on which WORKING LIFE not only EXISTS but THRIVES and then hopefully carries on His PRO-LIFE MISSION of creating and persisting a life-filled and God-loving universe, which is something GOD WANTS BECAUSE IT’S GOOD.
Just my opinion?
Yeah. But still – buy a globe. You will learn so much from it.
I recommend keeping your globe in some place you visit regularly. I stand in front of my globe generally 2-4 times a day, and I probably toy with it at least daily. When we’re having science discussions here, especially after one of Steve’s science posts, I may spend a half hour with that globe.
What am I looking at?
I am looking at seasons. I’m looking at angles of the sun. I’m looking at hours of daylight, twilight, and darkness. But that’s just the beginning.
Most importantly, I’m looking at thousands of tiny details and saying “OH, THAT MAKES SENSE”. Airplane flights. Jet lag. Shipping routes. Planetary distances. Phone conversations. Satellites. “4 AM”. Russia, CHYYYNA, Japan. Burma Shave. TAIWAN. Why Hawaii has always been filled with trouble and bullshit. Look at your globe and every little thing starts to make sense.
This is very critical. When you have a real, true, winning solution in science, like a spherical planet, it just makes all the little stuff WORK. All the thousands of minor details WORK for any scientist who looks at the model, and kicks the tires. This is why Newton is not “replaced” by Einstein – he’s just being helped out around the edges where things get weird.
The problem with “Flat Earth” (and other things I’ll talk about later) is that one big mistake made from an emotionally attractive bias to the past tries (and fails) to upset all the little yet critical stuff other people are doing or have done – meaning millions of honest, good-faith observations. THEN, the same people who break all the little yet critical stuff for everybody else, when confronted, just throw back some non-working, “causes even more trouble”, evasion of an answer, and pretend that they answered the problem, when they didn’t. And that is exactly why nobody takes them seriously, and most people ignore them.
In science, you have to make something that lets OTHER PEOPLE explain or predict stuff on their own, successfully, nearly every time, to actually have a product that sells AND GETS RE-SOLD. Newton did that. Chemistry did that. Electromagnetism did that. Relativity did that. Quantum mechanics did that. Particle physics did that.
When you look at the globe, try to predict how long automobile trips and plane flights take. Look at where islands are. Look at where history happened. Look at where mankind started, wandered, and settled. Look at climate. Look at weather. Look at temperatures. Look at where those temperatures are on the globe.
Right there, the semi-frozen pizza stumbles hard, but the globe, with two poles on one axis, just works like crazy. Everything is nicely – no – perfectly explained – and it’s explained all together at the same time, by a very simple model.
Your actual globe will make you a solid and strong glober. And scientist. And lover of truth.
And then you will become even stronger, because – believe it or not – you will become stronger in FAITH. You will start to see how God makes stuff WORK – and I mean REALLY WORK – simply, powerfully, independently – and that pattern is something you can predict will show up again, and again, and again.
God makes stuff that WORKS. And KEEPS WORKING.
But I’m getting ahead of things.
So buy that globe, or get the old one out, and let’s talk about it. Make that globe WORK for you. Let it help you see the TRUTH.
And as it brings you closer to TRUTH, it will bring you closer to GOD.
W
“Is there anything as great as a Trump rally?”
TOPSHOT – US President Donald Trump holds a Make America Great Again rally as he campaigns at Orlando Sanford International Airport in Sanford, Florida, October 12, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
How to Distinguish a Key Principle of Reason, Logic and Science, from Irrational Exuberance in Contrarian Explanation
I really try to avoid using the term crackpot.
In science, the term crackpot is a bit like the terms Nazi, pedophile, and antisemite are in politics. The word freezes conversation. It strikes fear – often very unfairly – into all who are listening. Indeed, it is used in science for that very reason. Crackpot is very similar to the word crank, only worse. Using it in regards to a single person rarely helps, and using it against the wrong person can actually hurt – both the individual, and science as an enterprise.
As a young but very real scientist, I met MANY emerging young crackpots, who considered me a potential sounding board – and I like to think that I converted most of them to either outright scientists, or scientifically literate aficionados of real science. In fact, I don’t recall ANY junior crackpots who I could not make more logical and scientific by patience, understanding, and teaching of the sublime joys of REAL understanding and discovery.
More than that, was the GOOD that crackpots did for me. By patiently trying to understand what crackpots were saying, I invariably walked away a better scientist. Errors don’t just force you to ask ONE right question – they force you to ask MANY excellent questions. Sometimes it requires the patience of Job, but that’s just one more reason why reading my Bible has been so helpful.
Crackpottery, analyzed deeply, always leads back to real science, often including things I didn’t know, or didn’t know well enough. Most crackpot science is – in my experience, one of three things: (1) some very illustrative, useful, and “teachable” error, or (2) some well-known and very beautiful aspect of science or mathematics, which seems novel, but isn’t, or (3) some kind of “old science” which is very intuitive, but is now understood to be wrong.
Of course, there can be many layers of JUNK on top of the key scientific mistake, as the crackpot uses even more crackpot ideas to hold everything together, as the key idea fails. However, I would not want to laugh too loudly about such a dubious tactic, as “Bondo and paint” are also used very effectively in real science, politics, and law.
Sometimes, when discussing crackpottery in science, I like to say this.
“There is a potential scientist in every crackpot, and a potential crackpot in every scientist.”
I find that crackpot ideas are a great introduction to a conversation about real science. The trick is turning the exuberant crackpot away from the dopaminergic lust of superficial logical connections – and getting them addicted to the patient romance of deep conceptual relationships and understanding. If the latter reminds you of real love – Biblical, academic, humanitarian, or philosophical – you are absolutely right. I believe it is our duty, as people who LOVE science and math, to elevate crackpots from their trap, even if we fail, but in the process, to “teach to the fourth wall”. And that is exactly what I’m doing now.
The hot pants of OMG / string of buzzwords / “maybe this stuff is all related and I can see it” is the addictive pseudoscientific experience that crackpots cannot get out of their minds. But let them experience a “fellow scientist” showing them that they are TRULY CORRECT about something that they said, and how this idea was explored by famous scientists in history, and you can begin the process of instilling the DISCIPLINE that the crackpot so sorely needs.
Reforming a crackpot can take days, weeks, months or years. The key is to nurture the healthy joys that come from disciplined understanding, as a substitute for the toxic buzz of loose conjecture rooted in loose quasi-understanding.
Some crackpots are beyond help, and scientists who are teaching to more open minds (think about our own SteveInCO) cannot afford to waste their time on those few minds that will never attain self-skepticism within this lifetime. Walking away from crackpots who have very intentionally broken and super-glued the keys of reason in the corresponding locks, is simply necessary.
I get this. For all my criticisms of Neil deGrasse Tyson, and scientific disagreements with him, I completely understand his need to tell Terrence Howard to “move along, thank you” and to stop listening to the nonsensical ideas of Terryology.
Note that Joe Rogan does NOT get this, and he will need to be gently schooled on this point. I admire that Joe will listen to Terrence, but Joe is also a bit too easily swept up into Terrence’s world of delusional mumbo-jumbo.
Terrence Howard and Terryology are where we begin this discussion.
To be brief, Terrence was known more as an actor than as a pseudoscientist, but when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, he exploded into the national consciousness. I am including the entire 3-hour interview, but I strongly caution against watching the whole thing without having some of the context I’m going to provide. On the other hand, a few random clicks will give you the flavor in a most enlightening way.
Terrence Howard – Full Interview on The Joe Rogan Experience
Terrence Howard is clearly a nice guy, and I am certain that I could be his friend. We might even have some profound discussions about the periodic table, as he comes very close to real science there, and THAT is where I would strike to try to reform him (see sidebar in Appendix). However, he is unlikely to ever gain the discipline of self-skepticism, to temper his equally welcome skepticism of scientific orthodoxy. The best that can be done, is to use him as a living example of an important dysfunction in science, and to educate the masses by reacting to him.
Surprisingly, that works really well, and that’s why I’m here.
Terrence is (in my humble opinion) a living example of the idea that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Terrence is an actor, but before that, he ALMOST became a scientist – specifically, a chemical engineer. However, at the exact moment when accepting some discipline from his teacher would have helped him become a true scientist, he rejected the teaching, and dropped out of school.
To get to the heart of that break, Terrence believes that, because 2 times 2 equals 4, 1 times 1 should equal 2. Now, I will admit that the feeling that something should be different is extremely useful in scientific discovery, but we also know from experience that should is extremely dangerous in almost any context. Psychologists routinely repair people by getting them to understand that their list of shoulds has grown too long and nonsensical to be mentally and physically healthy.
Terrence claims that the issue of this mathematical argument is why he dropped out of college – that his teacher could not accept this new form of math, which is part of what Terrence calls Terryology.
I have no idea if that account is true, or the full story, and I strongly suspect that Terrence was having more trouble than just a disagreement with his teacher over math. There is even some doubt that Terrence was ever in college, but let’s just set that aside, and assume that Terrence did start to attend college. It is very likely that Terrence had a bad understanding of math at very basic levels, and was not able to follow the teachers in his classes, due to that faulty understanding. However, in the hubris of academic freedom, which new students often experience, I suspect that Terrence basically went off the rails. Here is a teacher talking about his theory of Terrence’s defective education.
Many people think that Terrence is conflating addition (where 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 are true) with multiplication. I have my own theory – that Terrence is simply intuiting a new operation – unfortunately rather ill-defined – which is basically y=2x but poorly expressed as y=x*x or y=x^2 (y equals x squared).
And once I realized this, I noted something else.
If you ever had any differential (first semester) calculus, you may have noted that y=2x is – more or less – the first derivative of y=x^2 (y equals x squared).
This video explains what that means.
My explanation of Terrence’s idea would then be that the thing that should be 2 at 1, but is also 4 at 2, is in fact the derivative of self-multiplication – not self-multiplication itself.
I’m definitely NOT saying that Terrence Howard “re-invented calculus”, but what I am saying is that his “invention” – in a very typical crackpot way – is in fact a personal rediscovery of something real, known, and actually very beautiful – and THAT is part of the seduction of crackpottery. Terrence is able to see it, but he doesn’t have the patience and rigor to realize what he’s intuiting, nor the language to communicate it. He TRIES to communicate it, but he fails to use the language others have agreed to use. He uses new terms – neologisms – and people almost get it, in a similar way. As Terrence piles on more analogies and scientific verbiage, people nod and make sounds of insight, but nobody really, truly, understands.
Normal people having beautiful mathematical realizations is not uncommon. Moreover, these realizations are sometimes hard to put into words. Thus, these ideas may seem novel and inventive – and they are in fact novel to the person thinking them, and they were likely inventive, to at least some extent (unless they were just badly remembered math lessons). But the idea that this new thought is a NEW INVENTION TO THE WORLD is a huge leap that is almost never true.
The aforementioned near-tangibility of crackpot ideas, and the communicability of that near-tangibility, are part of the danger of crackpottery – the fact that others “kinda get it” just like Terrence does. This crackpot virality spreads a sort of vague almost-thinking which reminds me of the feckless and far-too-innocent Eloi in H.G. Wells story of The Time Machine.
However, don’t expect me to push for “Big Sister” and her net nanny censors to crack down on crackpots. Instead, we need more people to understand math, and to see the beauty in things like y=x^2 and its derivatives.
Biology – same thing. Remember – the vague “almost tangible idea” that men can be women if we all believe they are, is another great example of a viral crackpot idea – in this case, one that the current government endorses.
Trans women are real – they just aren’t truly women, even if we all try to believe that they are. I’m not calling for censorship of that idea, either. I’m calling for no censorship on the questioning of it, just like I would call for no censorship on Terrence Howard’s ideas, nor on the criticism of his ideas.
If you have already been somewhat seduced by Terrence Howard, you really need to listen to some of his critics. That said, I recommend an attitude of love and sympathy – even when you feel frustrated and annoyed. See if you can “do better” than these two critics, in terms of sharing their ability to be skeptical of what is obviously wrong, and remaining firm in your resistance to “feeling” the truth of what Terrence is saying, while still maintaining open-mindedness, and a desire to “make Terrence make sense” – but without compromising your skepticism.
What is the key difference between scientists like me and Steve, and pseudoscientists like Terrence?
Speaking for myself, the difference for me, is that I test and beat up my crackpot ideas, so in almost all cases where my “brilliant” idea isn’t simply WRONG, I discover that I’ve rediscovered something beautiful. Very few of my crackpot ideas have value, and most of those end up being hypotheses and conjectures that are not only limited, but need more work.
In my opinion, you’re not a true scientist unless you’ve rejected literally hundreds or thousands of your own ideas – refining just a few of the survivors into something that might have some limited value.
Self-skepticism is necessary. Enough to tame crackpot ideas, but not so much as to stifle innovative thinking.
What is the difference between, say, Robert Malone, who I deeply respect as a scientist, and Terrence Howard?
In a nutshell, Malone has been skeptical of his own ideas – and at a level which required extreme honesty and moral courage. His willingness to admit that his own technological children – mRNA therapeutics and vaccines – have problems and still need work, is just mensch level eleven. Time after time, Malone sees though the bullshit of a scientific orthodoxy which has cowered before self-interest, money, and power.
Malone, like many who question the current media-and-government-driven “new consensus” in vaccine and therapeutic science, points out the hypocrisy of the sudden new orthodoxy, relative to many of its backers’ own well-established principles of ethics and morality. Examples include the Hippocratic oath, “first do no harm”, patient rights, medical privacy and freedom, and a host of other ideas which were unassailable, just a few years ago. In essence, Malone calls upon the orthodoxy to live up to its own ideals, not in the Satanic Alinsky way that actually hates and despises those ideals, but in a Godly way that deeply loves and respects those ideals.
Crackpots, in contrast, tend to reject the orthodoxy in a dismissive way, without respecting any, or most, of its underlying and fundamental tenets. They almost always fail to explain what’s wrong with the consensus view, or the underlying principles. They dismiss it without adequate explanation. In fact, crackpots who disrespect Einstein without actually doing the hard work of understanding Einstein first, are so pervasive that disrespect of Einstein is almost diagnostic for crackpottery.
Although spotting and pointing out crackpot thinking is important, it is also important for us to push back, when the crackpot term is applied unfairly to people who are simply not crackpots.
Robert Malone, who my friends and I admire, is an obvious example to us of somebody who is not a crackpot, but Neil deGrasse Tyson and Peter Hotez, who we disagree with and don’t like, are also not crackpots, if we are honest. Neil and Peter and their ilk may have other problems, including extreme bias, corruption, and compromise by unethical government involvements, but they are not crackpots.
Even when they look and sound like crackpots!
Now, there are thousands if not millions of true crackpots, most of whom labor in obscurity, and I can’t show them all, but I would be remiss not to include at least one, a man named Roger Spurr, whose awful theories have been discussed on this site very much in the last few days.
Note the disrespect for Einstein – this is very typical.
If you can’t abide listening to his very vague and loose reasoning in the video, try this website, where you can read it instead. For me, that’s easier.
Now, to be completely honest, I (and everybody else with any significant background in physics) have my own “crackpot” speculations on what may be right or wrong with the Standard Model of particle physics, as well as the top competitors for extending or replacing it. My personal crackpottery includes disrespect for supersymmetry, and massive side-eye on what I would call “irrational exuberance by the mainstream in regard to dark matter.” Nevertheless, I am always eager to test those thoughts, trash those thoughts, or modify those thoughts, based on the latest experimental results. Indeed, when the definitive experiments come in, supporting either supersymmetry or dark matter, I will be converted by them – as I should be. What I can say with certainty about Spurr’s reasoning, is that I would have thrown out nearly all of his thoughts long ago, based on the huge quantities of very solid and very basic evidence against them.
In many ways – like the term used by Wolfgang Pauli, that became (fairly or unfairly) the title of a book criticizing the non-productivity of string theory – Spurr is not even wrong.
So what is the path forward?
How do we deal with “bad science” – pseudoscience – crackpot theories – whatever you want to call them?
The Founding Fathers had a very excellent idea with Free Speech.
It is my belief that the ultimate protection against crackpottery is free speech. As long as we can criticize not only the orthodoxy, but the ideas of our fellow critics, then everything is subject to healthy sunlight. When secrecy is used to protect ideas from challenge, or government uses its punitive powers to protect its own very open crackpottery, bad things happen.
To quote a certain blog, quoting a certain scientist:
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I’m good with sunlight, as a way to help us find truth. And I hope you are, too.
One place where Terrence Howard comes very close to actual innovative thinking is in his personal interpretation of the periodic table of the elements. This, despite many, many problems.
Terrence’s thinking about the elements is still (IMO) rather crackpot, and although his view of the table in terms of frequencies seems fascinating, it’s truly unnecessary, as his critics point out. Terrence’s few predictions are also quite wrong. Thus, his very different viewpoint is not clearly any BETTER than any other view of the elements, when gauged by the very basic metric of prediction generation. What Terrence is saying simply doesn’t appear to be useful.
HOWEVER, Terrence does come up with a very nice concept, which is hidden by his crackpot terminology, and almost lost by his inability to create a truly marketable neologism for it.
I happen to be good at neologisms, so I’ll do it for him.
As I’m watching Terrence, I am quite certain that he has “rediscovered” or “repackaged” some well-known concepts which are an important part of freshman chemistry. In particular, the concepts of electronegativity and electropositivity, which are powerful ideas about how different elements behave due to their electronics, seem to be things he’s describing.
Even more, if we accept that Terrence has rediscovered electronegativity and electropositivity, then he also seems to be proposing a very nice idea which bridges those two concepts, and which is frankly very needed, that idea being what I might call, more marketably, electroneutrality.
This is not Earth-shattering, but it’s nice.
So let me just be very clear. In a crackpot way, using bad terminology, making bad predictions, and wrapping it all in an unnecessary “musical” paradigm which most people don’t find useful at all, Terrence has still pushed a rather innovative idea – that highly “electroneutral” elements like carbon are a special thing we need to talk about in that context.
None of that is anything that my freshman chemistry professor didn’t say in different, more conventional ways. That’s exactly how I spotted it in Terrence’s ramblings. But bear in mind – that man was a true genius – with a photographic memory. He was a highly awarded and esteemed scientist, who worked on the Manhattan Project and many other such things. He was a rock star at the university. Students fought with each other and with the campus bureaucrats to get into his classes.
And while that great educator came close, but didn’t quite do it, Terrence straight-up pinpointed the fact that a curve inflection (think second derivative!) located between electronegativity and electropositivity is actually something worth conceptualizing, appreciating, and TEACHING.
I can imagine Terrence in my college chemistry class, taking that idea up to my professor, and that wonderful man not only listening and understanding through the broken terminology, but doing a complete lecture to us on what Terrence had just told him, or using it to create a test question, which he often did when somebody said something he found to be profound. I can see that same professor pushing the idea in chemical education – maybe even writing a paper on the concept. And in doing so, he would have demonstrated discipline to Terrence, showing him the true value of his thinking, and helped him to become an honest-to-God scientist.
I’m not certain if Terrence’s musical and frequency viewpoints have any real value in chemistry, but I do find them fascinating for both scientific and artistic reasons. Beyond that, the reason I don’t dismiss the possibility outright, is that Terrence put his finger on the undervaluing of electroneutrality in chemistry, using his bizarre methodology. So the fact that he came up with a worthwhile thought using it, may say something for the methodology used, especially if the latter could be cleaned up and made practical. I would bet against it, but not so much that I might not actually try to fully understand his frequency methodology at some point.
Like I said earlier, I have always gained something by trying to understand crackpots. Because, as I said, in every crackpot, there is a real scientist trying to get out and say something.
In closing, I’d like to thank Brave and Free for bringing the above video, which started all of this discussion. That is precisely why we’re here, practicing Free Speech – so that we can all learn something!
This series of posts regarding the ongoing issues of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 “vaccines” is dedicated to the memory of Yours Truly’s cousin Bill, who passed away “suddenly and unexpectedly” in September 2023. Today’s post is addressed to medical professionals who had any COVID-19 “vaccines” (in reality, gene therapy injections) injected into their bodies since 11 December 2020. This post is not “accusatory” in nature: Yours Truly is curious. One will make it clear at the outset that there are vaccines and other injectables that are useful: For examples, the Rabies vaccine and the injectable form of Heparin. One will also make it clear that the following questions regarding the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” are not “tin-foil hat” or “conspiracy theory” in nature — all of them are based on the writings and researching of medical doctors and scientists who want to find out the truth about these particular “vaccines.” There are many other questions that must be asked; Yours Truly is presenting a few of the most important ones from a personal point of view in today’s post.
Dear COVID-19 “Vaccinated” Medical Professional:
With all due respect for your education and expertise, there now must be serious questions raised concerning the COVID-19 “vaccines” that were rushed into use in the United States and all over the world. These questions are especially important given the increasing numbers of reports of COVID-19 “vaccine”-induced injuries, illnesses, disabilities, and deaths, among those who have taken, and/or continue to take, these “vaccines.”
The first question that must be raised is: Are you aware that the FDA knew, back on 30 April 2021, that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” by Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT162b2, is involved in the inducement of over 1,200 types of medical diseases and conditions? Here is the document that Pfizer-BioNTech gave to the FDA on that date: https://phmpt.org/document/5-3-6-postmarketing-experience.pdf, 5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021. Please see page 30 of this report, APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST. The report is also found here: https://phmpt.org/document/5-3-6-postmarketing-experience.pdf. The document is FDA time-stamped 30 April 2021. Yours Truly will point out that this report covers only between 11 December 2020 (the date of the initial EUA granted by the FDA for BNT162b2 to be used in the United States) and 28 February 2021. The list of Adverse Events of Special Interest begins with 1p36 deletion syndrome; other diseases, disorders, and events mentioned include: Cardiac arrest; Cerebral thrombosis; Demyelination; Guillain-Barre syndrome; hepatic disorders; immune system disorders; pulmonary disorders; Myocarditis; neurological disorders; and, Pericarditis; among many others.
The second question that must be raised is: Are you aware that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” made by Pfizer-BioNTech (these include BNT162b2; this company’s previous “booster” COVID-19 “vaccines”; and this company’s current “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”) contain two dangerous lipid nanoparticles, ALC-0159 and ALC-0315, both of which are for research use only? Here are the Safety Data Sheets for these lipid nanoparticles: For ALC-0159: https://cdn.caymanchem.com/cdn/msds/34336m.pdf; and, for ALC-0315: https://cdn.caymanchem.com/cdn/msds/34337m.pdf. On page one of each of these Safety Data Sheets, there is the following language: “Application of the substance / the mixture This product is for research use – Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.” In addition, are you aware that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” made by Moderna (these include mRNA-1273; this company’s previous COVID-19 “booster vaccines”; and this company’s current “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”) contain the dangerous lipid nanoparticle, SM-102, which is for research purposes only? Here is the Safety Data Sheet for this lipid nanoparticle: https://cdn.caymanchem.com/cdn/msds/33474m.pdf. On page one of this Safety Data Sheet, there is the exact same language in the section “Application of the substance / the mixture” as is listed for ALC-0159 and for ALC-0315 in their respective Safety Data Sheets: “This product is for research use – Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.” (As an aside, ALC-0149 and ALC-0315 are described only by their chemical component names in the FDA-issued Fact Sheet for the Pfizer-BioNTech “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”: www.fda.gov/media/167211/download; please see under section 11 DESCRIPTION. However, ALC-0159 and ALC-0315 are called by their proper names in the FDA document, www.fda.gov/media/172019/download, Emergency use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum, dated 23 June 2023, section 7.1 Chemistry Manufacturing and Control (CMC) Information.)
The third question that must be raised is: Are you aware that the COVID-19 “vaccines” can, and do, “shed” components of these products from “vaccinated” persons to un-“vaccinated” persons? Dr. Pierre Kory has an extensive series of articles on his blog relating to this phenomenon: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/; please see Part One of this series: https://medicalmusings.com/p/shedding-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-components, published 1 November 2023.
The fourth question that must be asked is: Are you aware that the COVID-19 “vaccines” can, and do, damage the blood vessels, heart tissue, and lung tissue, of persons who have these “vaccines” in their bodies? Please refer to: https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/causality-article.pdf, “Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality”, Michael Palmer, MD, and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD. Yours Truly presents page nine of this paper, which is self-explanatory:
The fifth question that must be asked is: Are you aware that the modRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccine”, BNT162b2, changes the DNA of the LINE-1 Human Liver7 cell line? Please refer to: https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44030073, “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line”, Yang De Marinis, et al. Yours Truly presents two images from this paper: The first, of DNA expression induced in BNT162b2-treated Human Liver7 cells in LINE-1; the second, of DNA amplicons induced by BNT162b2-treated Human Liver7 cells in LINE-1.
Notice the heavy accumulation of BNT162b2 in the livers of the Wistar lab rats that were used in this experiment conducted by Pfizer-BioNTech. This was the same BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” that was later injected into human patients (with ingredients amounts calibrated for human use.)
Yours Truly will note that the CDC changed the definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” in 2021, after the rollout of the COVID-19 “vaccines” (gene therapy injections.) One suspects that this was done to “shoe-horn in” these products under the aegis of “vaccines.” Please refer to: www.johnlocke.org/the-cdc-changed-its-definitions-of-vaccine-and-vaccination-and-keeps-changing-its-definition-of-fully-vaccinated/. However, the FDA states clearly, on page four of the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers for the administration of the “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by Pfizer-BioNTech, that this product is to prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19), not to “protect against serious illness from COVID-19”, as the CDC states. Please refer to: www.fda.gov/media/167211/download, page four, under section 1 EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION; and to www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html under What You Need to Know.
Finally, there is this paper, published on 24 January 2024: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.52876, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign”, M. Nathaniel Mead, Peter A. McCullough, et al. Yours Truly presents part of the Abstract of this paper:
Sincerely, with Good Energy, Peace, and Respect, PAVACA
PAVACA: BFA (2), Carnegie-Mellon University; MA, Duquesne University. Reading and writing about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 “vaccines” since March 2020. Also interested in Pharmacy and in the impacts of Big Pharma. General Editor of Imagination-Building: The Memoirs of John Douglas Forbes (1910 – 2018), First Professor of the Darden School of the University of Virginia, available at www.amazon.com/, www.barnesandnoble.com/, and www.authorhouse.com/.
I will try to keep this brief – although that is hard, because I’m fighting against people’s “feelings” instead of facts.
When the other side LIES all the time, it creates a “feeling” that they’re lying about everything.
Yes, they ARE lying about everything – but the lies are often very sophisticated, being composed of a matrix of solid and hard-won truths, held together by crafty lies.
If you’re going to FIGHT BACK, then I say FIGHT BACK SMART.
Buckle up.
INTRO
There has been a very successful strain of disinformation used to make our side seem very unconvincing to normies (to put it mildly).
That strain is the “there is no virus” deception.
Many times we tolerate this, because we don’t want to discourage our “fellow skeptics”, but it is critical that we refute nonsense on our own side.
In the past I’ve devoted occasional comments to putting down disinformation to the tune of “there is no virus” and “the virus was never isolated”, but after this last time, meaning yesterday, I’ve decided to just GUT this beast right on the dissection table, under the glaring lights of its own post, so that the “debunking” has its own URL, suitable for posting in response to well-meaning people on our side, who think “no virus” is a tenable position.
NO. It is not tenable. You are being BAITED into nonsense, so that you are no longer effective. You are being baited into becoming a “FEELZ” person, like reliable Democrats.
The “there is no virus” position is basically the “new flat earth” of biology. You’ll see why momentarily.
An Example of “There Is No Virus / Isolation”
I want to thank Canadian Guest for bringing an example of this disinformation to the board for my consideration. Bringing some FRESH RATS to this SCIENCE HAWK is always appreciated.
This is why I don’t restrict the bringing of “propaganda” and potential disinformation here. We’re adults. We can DEAL with it – and often very usefully. I get more truth out of Russian “propaganda” than out of most MSM “explainers”. Funny how that works.
WE will be the judge of truth – NOT “them”.
Here is the video. Watch if you want – particularly after reading this.
There are some tells OTHER than what I’m going to talk about, that this is an interesting construction designed to derail critics of the vaccines. Tell me what you think “smells” like targeted disinformation in the comments.
Did CIA or FIB make this? Did Chinese intelligence? Who are these people?
Koch’s Postulates
One of the centerpieces of “disproving” that viruses exist, is to engage in passive-aggressive science using what are called “Koch’s postulates”.
Koch’s postulates were a brilliant set of standards from the beginning of microbiology, designed to help prove that an illness was actually caused by a microbe, rather than a bodily dysfunction of some kind.
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Wikipedia has an excellent and quick presentation about Koch’s postulates AND the problems therein.
You would be very smart to notice something on the LAST slide.
“It is sometimes impossible to satisfy all of Koch’s postulates.”
One of the ways in which this happens, is that “pure culture” (stated in the second postulate) varies between a laboratory vacuum and a jungle floor. If you’re a “purist”, nothing will pass the postulates. If you’re laissez-faire about things, everything will pass. If you’re SMART about things, and demand a SMARTLY PURE culture, you will get great results, and Koch’s postulates will continue to work for even crazy things like viruses, prions, etc.
What’s up with viruses?
The problem is that viruses are not microbes in the same sense as bacteria, protozoans, and similar microorganisms which are well-handled by Koch’s original postulates, where “pure cultures” were “biologically sterile, but molecularly fertile” mixtures.
Viruses are, quite literally, molecular parasites. The transmission of viruses is both more demanding and less demanding on the nature of a “pure medium”, than is transmission of bacteria. Viruses transmit in a different way.
Viruses need almost nothing to survive in, but they need CELLS to reproduce in. Viruses do not grow in simple chemical brews. They need CELLS. Cells not only contain a lot of stuff of “their own” – they also contain a lot of viruses, AND the encoding for these and other viruses.
If you demand a “cell-free medium” for growth of a virus, you have basically sabotaged science “under the color of science”.
See how that works?
The history of Koch’s postulates, and the upgrading of Koch’s original postulates to take care of things like viruses, prions, etc., is discussed in THIS article:
SO – you will almost always see some kind of reference to Koch’s postulates, in “there is no virus” disinformation. Koch’s postulates are the perfect “medium” for passive-aggressive anti-science.
BUT WAIT! There’s MOAR!
“BUT MUH NON-ISOLATION!”
The next, and actually essential part of the disinformation, is the allegation that the virus behind COVID-19 was never isolated.
HOGWASH!
BULLSHIT!
LIES!
It was not only isolated early and often – it is ROUTINELY isolated, all over the world, in order that genetic studies OF THE VIRUS can be done.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists who gather “clout” in molecular biology by analyzing the RNA of a single virus, and thereby look for small changes in that RNA – meaning a few nitrogenous bases among hundreds of thousands. How do they “isolate” the RNA of the virus from samples taken from people? How do they NOT get a bunch of human nasal RNA, plus the RNA of all our OTHER embedded viruses, AND nasal bacteria, mixed up in the sample, screwing up the results?
It’s simple. They GROW THE VIRUS in a NONINFECTED cellular medium that LOVES the virus. They filter and separate the budding and “transmitting” virus from the cells. And then they check the RNA of the filtered virus.
WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS!
“Pictures or it didn’t happen.”
You can even see the damn spikes! Of course, they didn’t really need to do this – the RNA is the real convincer – the FINGERPRINT – but a picture is helpful for the doubters.
Sure sounds like “isolation” to me!
One of the best ways to demonstrate this to you, is to simply READ YOU THE PAPER where the pictures came from – back in the early days of COVID-19.
This paper was “e-published” back in March of 2020, when “Wuhan Coronavirus” had just been renamed to “SARS-CoV-2” because of China and Democrats (more on that later). The paper was actually received in February, around the time I was recovering from the original Wuhan strain of COVID-19, or something immediately descended from it.
This is from a Japanese group located in Tokyo. This is not by any means the earliest research on SARS-CoV-2 virus. It’s an IMPROVEMENT paper. These guys are saying “Hey! It’s easier to isolate this damn virus using OUR new method!”
Here is a text version of the paper, emphasizing the abstract.
Enhanced isolation of SARS-CoV-2 by TMPRSS2-expressing cells
A novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which caused a large respiratory outbreak in Wuhan, China in December 2019, is currently spreading across many countries globally. Here, we show that a TMPRSS2-expressing VeroE6 cell line is highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it useful for isolating and propagating SARS-CoV-2. Our results reveal that, in common with SARS- and Middle East respiratory syndrome-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 infection is enhanced by TMPRSS2.
As a bit of an aside, you will note that the editor is a Chinese researcher at an American university. The CCP has no problem pushing on the “social” buttons of American science, AND IT DOES. There was no way that the name “Wuhan coronavirus” was going to last. Think about it. This is subtle, but it’s the way things are now.
There are some nice graphics in the paper, too, including pictures of the virus.
(A) Expression of TMPRSS2 in total cellular RNA (0.2 µg) of indicated cells was compared with that in human lung RNA (catalog no. 636524; Clontech) by quantitative real-time PCR. ND, not detectable. (B) SARS-CoV-2–infected VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells. Cell rounding (black arrows) and syncytium formation (white arrows) (C). Electron micrograph showing isolated virus particles with negative staining. (Scale bar, 200 nm.) (D) Viral RNA multiplication in various cells at 48 h postinoculation with the viral specimen, as determined by real-time RT-PCR using E and N primer/probe sets (9). Cq, quantitation cycle. (E) Real-time RT-PCR amplification plot using the E primer/probe set, corresponding to the data in C. RFU, relative fluorescence units. (F) Comparison of cell susceptibility to the isolated virus, detected with a patient’s serum and Alexa 488-conjugated goat anti-human IgG. Nuclei were stained with DAPI.
It is EXTREMELY helpful to simply READ what the authors say, in recounting what they did.
I’ve put in BOLD what they DID.
Seven clinical specimens (throat swabs or sputum) obtained from seven SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were inoculated into VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells, which were monitored daily for cytopathic effect (CPE). These clinical specimens were deidentified prior to use, and this study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (approval no. 1091). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, from which the subjects were obtained, or their legally acceptable representatives for sample donation. In five cases among the seven, clear CPE with detachment/floating (black arrows, Fig. 1B) and syncytium formation (white arrows, Fig. 1B) developed at 2 or 3 d postinfection (p.i.) (Table 1).The virus titers in culture supernatants of the five cases at 3 d p.i. were 4.6 × 106 to 6.8 × 107 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per mL (Table 1).Typical coronavirus particles were detected by electron microscopy (Fig. 1C).Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of case Wk-521 detected the nearly full-length genome sequence from SARS-CoV-2 with >99.9% homology (1, 2) (GISAID database ID EPI_ISL_408667). Unexpectedly, the NGS data showed contaminated mycoplasma sequences (Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma arginini) from VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells. CPE in VeroE6 cells persistently infected with SARS-CoV was enhanced by infection with Mycoplasma fermentans (8), but whether a similar situation exists for SARS-CoV-2–related CPE in this cell line is unclear.
The viral RNA copies in the clinical specimens used for virus isolation were estimated by real-time RT-PCR (9, 10). As expected, viral RNA copies in the clinical specimens in which CPE developed within 2 d p.i. were greater than those in the other specimens (Table 1).
VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells are superior to other cell lines tested in this study for SARS-CoV-2 isolation. Consistent with previous reports (2, 4), the amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in the culture supernatants of Vero, Calu-3, and A549 cells 48 h p.i. was low and was measurably higher when VeroE6 cells were used. However, the viral RNA copies in the VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cell culture supernatants were >100 times greater than those from VeroE6 cells (Fig. 1 D and E). Data for SARS-CoV show that TMPRSS2 enhances its entry efficiency (5, 11). VeroE6 and VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells were infected with 10-fold serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 samples, and the infected cells were visualized by indirect immunofluorescent assays (Fig. 1E). The results showed that VeroE6/TMPRSS2 displayed ∼10-fold greater number of SARS-CoV-2–infected cells than the parental VeroE6 cells. These data suggest that, in common with SARS-CoV, TMPRSS2 may also play an important role in SARS-CoV-2 cell entry.
Pay special attention to THIS PART which is not highlighted above, but which shows the level of ATTENTION that was paid to the results.
Unexpectedly, the NGS data showed contaminated mycoplasma sequences (Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma arginini) from VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells. CPE in VeroE6 cells persistently infected with SARS-CoV was enhanced by infection with Mycoplasma fermentans (8), but whether a similar situation exists for SARS-CoV-2–related CPE in this cell line is unclear.
See what I was talking about with a “pure medium”? These mycoplama are very common contaminants of cell cultures. Note that these scientists are not HIDING the presence of contaminants in their “pure” medium. On the contrary, they’re saying they spotted the contamination, and are accounting for it.
The bottom line is that these people know exactly what they are doing, dealing with the tricky nature of Koch’s postulates under the realities of working with viruses – some of the hardest biology that can be done.
And THAT brings me to a personal observation.
On Difficult Technology
Science is a game that everybody CAN play, and I would go so far as to say it’s a game that everybody SHOULD play. You should be teaching your kids science and art, in exactly the way you should teach them football, baseball, and ice skating.
And just like with PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, in which people who you respect make errors that you call out, it helps to RESPECT the pros of science – EVEN AS YOU POINT OUT THEIR ERRORS, WHICH YOU SHOULD.
We don’t believe professional athletes are “always right” – why should you believe the same things about scientists?
Back in my laboratory days, I had a couple of “lucky insights” connected by a lot of hard work, and they demonstrate how science gets past obstacles, including in particular other scientists.
Dissatisfied with my seemingly unexciting assigned research project, I was in the perfect mood when a colleague of mine drew something very interesting on the blackboard with a big chalk “X” through it.
“Why doesn’t this work?” was my question.
My colleague gave a reason that didn’t seem right to me, and then stated that he was abandoning that project. I asked if he minded if I tried it. He didn’t mind – he had already gotten a new assignment from our boss.
I picked up the gauntlet, and got things to work the very first time. The big chalk “X” was wrong. My insight was correct.
Happy that the abandoned research project was back in play, our boss allowed me to take it over and pursue it.
Pushing the idea through on a small scale, I actually got the entire project to work – but not to the satisfaction of skeptics. We didn’t have “clincher” proof. We needed to scale up to get that level of proof.
Scaling it up, however, failed. It took a lot of very interesting science to understand the whole process, and scale it up to the level that was necessary to convince the skeptics.
The problem was, not ALL of the skeptics were convinced. One skeptic, at the last minute, needed proof that would require even MORE scaling up.
The problem THERE is that NOT EVERYBODY could do the work.
When others could not duplicate my results, I was forced to do the even bigger scale-up myself, AND to do it under intense scrutiny, to figure out why *I* could do it and others could not.
The result was obvious proof that I had gotten it to work. The skeptic’s harassment had led to a magnificent NEW proof that neither we nor the skeptic had fully predicted. We had exceeded the level of proof that the skeptic demanded.
HOWEVER, this left open a subject that nobody really wanted to talk about.
Why weren’t others able to duplicate my results?
The sad fact is, science is filled with people who do not practice the habits necessary for success. They are not PERSISTENT when they need to be. They are not INSIGHTFUL in trying to get around problems. Even more importantly, they are not HOPEFUL that they CAN get around problems. This failure to have hope in overcoming obstacles is a HUGE problem in science. But likewise, many are not sufficiently DUBIOUS in trying to spot thousands of small potential problems, and doing what is necessary to prevent them. We have to be SKEPTICAL, too.
Even when we’re skeptical, sometimes we’re not skeptical enough. An excellent example is provided by the tragic death of Karen Wetterhahn, who died of dimethylmercury poisoning, when a few droplets of dimethylmercury splashed on and penetrated one of the thin latex gloves she was wearing. This was the level of protection recommended at the time, but it was not enough.
Karen had protected her coworkers by doing the work herself, instead of exposing THEM to the danger. She did the work “to code”, but it was still not enough. Part of her legacy is the habit of scientists in later years to use two or even three layers of gloves, when handling dangerously toxic and reactive substances. Many will use “one more than recommended” of just about any safety measure.
We have to LEARN and RETAIN thousands and thousands of such habits just to do some of the simplest scientific operations, like weighing out a substance properly.
The boss who I mentioned above loved to say “All the easy stuff has been done.” It’s SO true, even though it’s obviously an exaggeration. That is why there are amazing recent discoveries – every once in a while – of things that COULD have been discovered many years prior, and which were simply missed or overlooked. But for the most part, it’s true. Almost all of the easy and obvious stuff has been done.
So what is my point?
The point is, science is HARD – and yet you are allowed to criticize it – AND YOU SHOULD.
The trick is, criticizing it and BEING RIGHT. And you do NOT have to be an “expert”, or even a scientist, to be right.
But you may have to be persistent, insightful, hopeful, and skeptical.
And we’re finally serving a NORMAL DRINK tonight. Even though it’s a SECOND ROUND.
STAY TUNED…..
While our beloved REAL bartender takes a needed break of unknown duration, we continue to ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE.
and what time of year is it now???
Christmas Spirit
We continue our WAAAAAY too-long celebration of Christmas by noting that some of our neighbors STILL have their lights and decorations up.
We saw a nice red Christmas bow laying in somebody’s yard by their driveway.
We ourselves just got rid of our tree.
And TODAY is the 25th of the month. That’s VERY “Christmassy”.
So yeah. Given that there are a few daysweeks months AFTER Christmas where it’s STILL Christmas, that means we have a few more weeks left. Riiiiiiight?
Sure! So have some hot CHRISTMAS chocolate!
And now, the rules of the pub.
HOUSE RULES
God bless us, every one! Tiny Tim had such a beautiful soul. He hadn’t a mean bone in his body…unlike most of us. But in keeping with Christmas, we promise to honor Wolf’s rules and keep Scrooge at bay. The Utree is where the Ghost of Christmas Present will conduct you should you need to rattle some chains. Another option, should all hell break loose is here.
Now, back to business.
AMEN!
Free the January Brothers!
Current Art On The Wall
We’re just gonna segue into the next item with our selection, if that’s OK.
This gets a bit “planetary”…..
Venus and Mercury Instructing CupidChristiaan Huygens, Saturn, and SomethingRaindrops on Titan
…..which was based off of an FDA alert (sketchy link)…..
…..which actually links back to a different CDC alert (even sketchier link)…..
WHATEVER.
Here is that final CDC alert. Only the top 3 paragraphs are important here.
Let me quote the text of those first 3 paragraphs for Zoe. I will make BOLD what is important.
Dear Partners in Prevention,
December 20, 2021
I’m writing to share the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alert sent to clinical laboratory staff and health care providers about a syphilis test. The alert reports that false reactivity, or “false-positive,” Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR; non-treponemal) test results, when using the Bio-Rad Laboratories BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total & RPR kit, can occur in some people who received a COVID-19 vaccine and includes recommendations for addressing these potential false positives.
Historically, false-reactive RPR test results have been observed in people with systemic infections unrelated to syphilis, such as tuberculosis, rickettsial diseases, and endocarditis.False-reactive RPR testing also has been previously observed following immunization (specifically following smallpox vaccine). False reactivity with RPR can also occur during pregnancy.
Per CDC’s 2021 STI Treatment Guidelines, reactive RPR results should always be confirmed with treponemal testing (e.g., Treponema pallidum particle agglutination, TP-PA). This is, in part, because of the above-mentioned issue: false-positive nontreponemal test results can be associated with multiple medical conditions and factors unrelated to syphilis. According to FDA’s alert, treponemal testing for syphilis does not appear to be impacted by this issue.
Allow me to translate.
It turns out that “being vaccinated for COVID-19” throws off an ANTIBODY-BASED SYPHILIS TEST, and can give false positives.
The reason is that these are a sort of antibodies against substances released from cells attacked by certain diseases and conditions. Thus, they’re not exclusively the downstream product of syphilis.
Normally, certain diseases, certain vaccines, and pregnancy can all throw off this more rapid but less conclusive syphilis test, and that is part of the reason why people are supposed to follow up this easier test, with a test that looks for the actual organism which causes syphilis.
Thus, we have added one more cause for the test to be thrown off.
This is not the same as the HIV test that was thrown off by a particular Australian vaccine, because the antigen in the vaccine actually contained an HIV protein (gp41) as part of the vaccine, and created antibodies against HIV. I talked about that last week. That was a much more direct test interference, easily expected.
How a Psycho Vaccine Marrying the Infamous COVID Spike Protein to HIV’s Neurotoxic gp41 Was [Allegedly] Canned by a Mere Testing SNAFU How Australia Dodged The First Mad Vax Bullet of the WEF Scamdemic / Plannedemic Darwin Award Vaccine Featured Insane Merger of HIV and COVID But Failed Due to Buggering of AIDS Tests, NOT …
What I find interesting is that one of the things that normally sets off the syphilis test is endocarditis.
Endocarditis, which is inflammation of the inner surfaces of the heart, is one of the three main heart inflammations, thus being pretty damned close to myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the outer sac), both of which have very prominent correlations to the jabs.
So while this means that – NO – the shots are not giving people syphilis – the shots ARE basically acting like an illness, and very much like a known cardiac illness.
You were warned.
Now – while I was researching syphilis, I became interested in the treatment with compounds of mercury.
Traditional mercury-based pastes were used in cures. Whilst this was partially effective, the toxic side effects of the mercury probably outweighed any advantages.
This is actually a HUGE understatement.
It turned out that arsenic was considerably better.
It wasn’t too long after that success, that penicillin took over as the real cure for syphilis.
I will come back to MERCURY in a future post, because I found something quite amazing in its history.
But if you look ONE COLUMN TO THE LEFT and TWO ROWS UP…..
COPPER is also bacteriostatic and algicidal – and at concentrations below where it is a health risk. And THAT leads back to a DRINK that Grandmaintexas introduced us to……
Moscow Mule Revisited
Based upon my reading of Grandma’s post on the subject, the Moscow Mule simply is not a proper Moscow Mule unless it is served in copper vessels.
The health effects of COPPER are about as debatable as the effects of mercury – although, in general, copper is much less toxic, so when it’s being “not good for you”, it’s a lot less “not good for you” than lead. At the same time, copper is much MORE toxic to things like algae, fungi, plant roots, and other “pests”, than it is to us, and that is why it is found among the gardening pesticides in hardware stores. The antimicrobial activity of copper is extremely well-documented, but appears to be complex. Simply having copper in the household or workplace environment seems to have health benefits – and this was particularly noted back in the days of less sanitary environments. Water passing through copper fixtures tended not to spread disease.
We tend to forget about OLD SCIENCE, so we can’t put new things into good perspective.
LEAD and other CHEMICAL ADVANCES saved us from the horrible BIOLOGICAL diseases and maladies of the uncivilized life.
Did they have chemical consequences? Yes. The TRICK is REMEMBERING AND ADMITTING OLD RISKS AND BENEFITS while also DISCOVERING AND ADMITTING NEW RISKS AND BENEFITS, then BALANCING HONESTLY with the PROPER PRIORITIES which put PEOPLE FIRST.
It is VERY easy to see where CDC went off the rails with the COVID-19 vaccines, being unable to admit old benefits (of lasting immunity to caught and treated diseases), while also being unable to admit new risks (of vaccines using untested and immature technologies).
Likewise, looking back, it is easy to see that basic sanitation – not vaccination – REALLY conquered diseases. Vaccines came in, mopped up, and took all the credit, by design, because bad people realized that vaccines in the hands of a technological elite, combined with an ignorant populace they can essentially murder and experiment on at will, allow them to basically FARM HUMANITY.
Sorry, Bill Gates. We understand your social engineering of us. We know your M.O. We know your real intentions. Including for the “people of color” you pretend to care about.
You will note that, in general, the further down the periodic table one goes, the more toxic the metals. Surprisingly, the second-lightest one – beryllium – is quite toxic, but even lightweight aluminum simply isn’t all that bad, in the big picture (but you’ve got to keep it on the OUTSIDE). In contrast, if you get down and heavy there with mercury, thallium and lead, or even as far down the table as cadmium and indium, the metals can be quite toxic.
Lead used to be used for plumbing – enough to lend its name to the profession. Copper then took over – before plastic began to displace copper. Nevertheless, copper is still highly valued for plumbing, as well as for electrical wiring.
As noted above, copper in drinking water is an interesting beast. Lead and copper in drinking water are controlled by the EPA under something called the Lead and Copper Rule, or LCR. Note that the linked document, which talks about the most recent “upgrade” to the rule, is over 400 pages. Yeah – there is a MESS of goofiness outside the actual rule there. Most of the concern is about lead, which is now highly restricted. Here is all that is said about copper’s toxicity in the linked explainer:
Acute copper exposure causes gastrointestinal distress. Chronic exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with Wilson’s disease because they are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, which can lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric symptoms. For a more detailed explanation of the health effects associated with copper see Appendix E of the final rule Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020). EPA did not propose revisions to the copper requirements; thus, the final rule does not revise the copper requirements.
Copper is basically off the hook at 1.3 ppm or below. That number has not been upgraded. Why is that level important? In my opinion, it’s because copper is bacteriostatic and algicidal in practice at between 0.1 and 1.0 ppm. Thus, one can SAFELY DRINK water which is being purified against microorganisms with copper.
And THAT would include the Moscow Mule, depending upon how long it sits.
I refer you now to an excellent article, which relies on a breathless scaremongering headline, but actually DOES provide a balanced set of viewpoints on both the DANGERS and BENEFITS of dietary copper.
Sipping This Popular Cocktail Is a “Health Hazard,” Experts Say
AFTER 27 MINUTES, YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF HEAVY METAL POISONING.
First of all, copper isn’t really a “heavy metal” IMO, but whatever. It’s heavier than some.
You will note, after reading at the link, that you have to drink a ton of Moscow Mules, or a few that have sat around for a very long time, to MAYBE get sickened by them.
In general, avoid drinking acidic things that have been in contact with copper for a long time, and you will be OK.
Remember – most household water has sat around in copper pipes for quite a while at neutral pH, and it’s simply not toxic (due to copper). You DO get less lead if you flush your water 30 seconds before getting drinking water, but again – we’re talking about levels that would make Romans, Victorians, and even people from 70 years ago howl with laughter at our prissy over-concern – even knowing the science.
Perspective is very important – as you are about to see in a beautiful example of the failure of modern science, thanks to CCP socialism infecting both global science and science publishing.
Failure of Socialized Science and Peer Review Exposed in a JAMA-Published Ivermectin Study
The fact that Pierre Kory now calls JAMA “PHAMA” is a nice short way of saying that medicine has been utterly taken over by the pharmaceutical industry, and IMO set back several thousand years. Hippocrates would be HORRIFIED by what has happened to medicine – and I say that as somebody OUTSIDE medicine, and a lot closer to the pharmaceutical industry.
IMO it’s too late to save the pharmaceutical industry from scandalous criminal survival – but it’s not too late to save the profession of medicine from utter moral death. And thus, you will be treated to my following scientific opinion.
Steve Kirsch doesn’t play defense. He saw how JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) completely FUMBLED an ivermectin paper, and how Pierre Kory picked it up off the ground, taking complete control, but more or less just standing there, lamenting the bad refs and horrible cheating. So Kirsch did the only thing he does. He grabbed the ball from Kory and ran it back for a touchdown.
“New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water”
This is an utter reversal of the conclusion of the paper.
All because some guy in the stands named “Massimaux” spotted the free ball and yelled “FUMBLE!!!”
If you understand science, and science publishing, then you will see that what Kirsch did here was BRUTAL. And I’m gonna show you where all the bruises and black eyes are.
I almost feel sorry for JAMA, but not enough to miss this opportunity to LEAP ONTO THE DOGPILE and give AMA’s hare-brained PC leadership a good WEDGIE.
Don’t worry about the AMA. They’re protected by Pfizer, Biden, and the media. And just like any good mafia arrangement, as long as AMA keeps saying the right things, and not saying the wrong things, everything is gonna be OK.
Everything but science. But that’s OK, too.
We’ll take care of things. Just like we did here.
Here is the Kirsch gab that grabbed my attention.
Repeating for Zoe, as well as our silicon friends…..
“Wait a second. I thought there was some paper just out that Alex Berenson said was basically the end of ivermectin, although scientifically, I know that’s pretty much impossible. I know there is SOME explanation for why this paper (which I have not read yet) has to be deviating in some way from the MANY papers that show limited but solid efficacy – and especially against DEATH – just like HCQ. But this CANNOT be the same paper. No way! Kirsch would not be saying this unless the results were stunningly IN FAVOR of ivermectin, and there is no WAY that some authors with a NEGATIVE-LEANING study would be……. I mean….. WHAT THE HELL????”
SO – I just stopped to see what in the hell paper Kirsch was talking about.
Now we’ve discussed (in the comments on this site) Berenson’s very weird attack on Robert Malone when they appeared together on Fox News, which didn’t make sense THEN, but which does NOW – and I will explain that momentarily. But first, back to Kirsch.
Kirsch explains that – YES – this paper states in BOTH its abstract and its conclusion the following:
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
However, that is NOT what the data says.
Certainly not to everybody.
Certainly not to me.
In other words, DIFFERENT scientists (like Kirsch, Kory, me, and an anonymous Twitter poster names Massimaux, who found the key issue) have looked at the data, and see something quite different.
Kory goes into a rather long analysis of the whole war against ivermectin, but Kirsch digs into Kory’s article and then finds and elucidates the key nugget – discovered by Massimaux – that just ends the arguments.
It helps to read this in Kirsch’s article, but if you’re going to be lazy, I’ll explain here.
Here is Massimaux’s tweet:
In the I-TECH study, of 490 patients, 241 got Ivermectin and 331 were vaccinated.
Can we compute the vaccine effectiveness AGAINST DEATH and Ivermectin effectiveness AGAINST DEATH? Yes, we can! See the figure.
Look at the bottom line in the two tables and compare. Not only is ivermectin CLEARLY better than the vaccine at preventing death – the significance of the result is significantly greater.
If the efficacy of ivermectin against death is not true, then very little else in the study is true.
This data says that ivermectin is exactly what we’ve been saying it is. It’s not a miracle cure, but it WORKS – particularly in preventing DEATH – its only real purpose. That result is IN THE PAPER. It is IN THE DATA. And if the authors want to argue that it’s not in the data, because it’s not significant enough, then nothing ELSE is in the data, because most everything else is even LESS significant.
Now it’s very important to realize that this nice little pair of tables FROM THE DATA is not due to the original authors – it’s due to a POST-PUBLICATION “peer review” by somebody who looked at the very same data, and PROVED using the authors’ own data that they were WRONG to say that the data didn’t support use of ivermectin.
So why did the authors tack on that wrong statement?
Did the EDITORS make them tack on that statement? Did the AUTHORS tack it on to get the paper to publish? Or is the “peer bias” against ivermectin, mostly due to the media, SO STRONG that scientists didn’t even look through their own data to see a conclusion they didn’t want to see?
Or is it a combination of ALL of these?
It is clearly in the data that ivermectin is three times as effective as the vaccines in preventing death. Even more importantly, if you add in what is known OUTSIDE the paper in question – namely the adverse effects of the vaccine and the safety of ivermectin, then it’s a no-brainer to NOT take the vaccine and to just use ivermectin. And Kirsch explains THAT rather nicely.
The data LITERALLY justify our position.
This was my hunch all along, and as vaccine side effects loomed larger and larger, and ivermectin proved to be rather shockingly harmless, even at antiviral doses comparable to large-animal systemic antiparasitic doses. All ivermectin had to do was prevent death to some moderate extent, and it was a no-brainer that people should take it.
To conclude anything else, based on the data, is murderous folly, in my opinion.
When I was a young lad – a mere student – but also one who WROTE PAPERS (because I had a great professor who TRAINED US to be full-blooded scientists), we EXPECTED to be CRITICIZED in peer review by people exactly like Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and myself. We expected that others would look at data and see it completely differently.
And we would then have to ACKNOWLEDGE the alternative interpretations, or convince the editors that the criticism was not even worth acknowledging (a VERY rare occurrence in any legitimately contested field).
My lab had PRACTICE criticizing other people’s work – and we expected it in return. I personally found quite a few errors in the literature. Most were small – mostly problems of the writing – but some were huge and affected the science. Sometimes the big errors would only partially alter the author’s conclusions, but other times they had a significant impact.
However, I have to admit that I never ran into data which PROVED THE OPPOSITE of the authors’ main conclusion – even if only to the critic – and THAT is what we have here.
PEER REVIEW is designed to subject a paper to (hopefully at least TWO) critical readers who will very likely DEMAND improvements. Those improvements often mean acknowledging DIFFERENT views of the data as being possible and maybe even reasonable.
That kind of QUALITY peer review was VERY OBVIOUSLY not done here.
What we have RIGHT HERE is a demonstration that HERD REVIEW is much more important than PEER REVIEW.
PEER REVIEW is subject to BIAS. It is subject to SUBVERSION and GAMING.
I go back to the Zhang mask paper, for crying out loud.
To me, this will always remain a horrifying example of “fitting the data to the theory”, rather than looking to see what the data says. You can just look at this graph and see the crime.
I lay this stuff SQUARELY at the feet of SOCIALISM, which has politicized science and removed control of science from the people of science themselves, investing much of it in a media which WILL NOT question government narratives. People raised under socialism who become “go-alongers” – and so SOME degree that is everybody – stop questioning things that need to be questioned.
I have WATCHED and I have SEEN how WEF and CCP corruption have degraded science everywhere.
They’re not going to fix this stuff – at least not yet.
But until then, know this:
Ivermectin WORKS, and it was just proven by people who said it doesn’t work.
Thanks to HERD REVIEW.
One last point.
Why did Alex Berenson not see this?
IMO, it’s because Berenson is simply not a scientist – he’s an investigative journalist. Thus, his virtue-signaling attack on Malone was meant to show “journalistic balance”, NOT that he himself had deeply researched the history of the topic, in which case he (Berenson) would have likely said “Yes, Malone really is the most foundational of the founding fathers of the tech.”
But let’s not blame Alex too hard. THE AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY – that’s right – the authors themselves – didn’t see it, either.
See what I’ve always said? Real science is contentious.
But it has a good heart.
It wants the TRUTH.
ENJOY THE SHOW.
Thank you all for being here. Have a great weekend.
As a young science student in the 1970s, I never would have thought that I would have to correct the American and global media over an issue of late 19th century basic science, but yet, here we are.
When basic theories of MATTER and CHEMISTRY proved that “Compound A created by one route has the same properties as compound A created by a different route”, science got a hold of a very simple but very revolutionary idea – that substances had assignable responsibilities for things. Further still, that we could PROVE THIS, and then use it in both diagnosis and cures.
This was the beginnings of the scientific theory of DRUGS and PHARMACEUTICALS.
I was PART OF THIS INDUSTRY. I learned about its history. I marveled at its beautiful truth.
But yet NOW – shamefully – to defend a corrupt pharmaceutical industry that literally controls our government, on behalf of other governments, our media will without shame DENY the most basic truths about how drugs and biochemicals work.
What is even MORE SHAMEFUL is that the global pharmaceutical industry KNOWS that I’m right – and yet in CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, they allow the idiot media to defend them with insanity that THEY THEMSELVES swept away 150 years ago.
SO – what I am going to do here is to SHAME OUR MEDIA – our unscientific media – for embracing VOODOO theories of disease, as 150-year-old BASIC SCIENCE stares them in the face.
Let me begin by stating the bottom line right up front.
Anybody who thinks that cardiovascular pathology in recipients of spike protein vaccines is due to anything other than those very same spike protein antigens – which were BORROWED FROM THE DISEASE that causes the very same cardiovascular pathology – is denying the most basic science of drugs and disease.
Let me state that just a little MORE clearly.
It is impossible for vaccines to use a known molecular pathogen as an antigen, and NOT engender risk of pathogenicity due to that very same molecular pathogen.
Do you understand this?
If you take a poison to gain immunity to the poison, and you suffer poisoning typical of the poison, it was probably the poison, and probably not “stress”.
Good GOD – I cannot believe that I actually have to SAY THIS to adults in America in 2021, almost 2022.
But lets keep beating this into mushy skulls……
COVID-19 does bad cardiovascular things
COVID-19 virus has a spike protein
the spike protein is how COVID-19 does the cardiovascular bad things
the spike protein is how the vaccines “pretend” to be COVID-19
the spike protein by itself does the cardiovascular bad things
vaccines CREATING spike protein can thus do the cardiovascular bad things
This is actually very simple, because it’s OLD science.
Here is how we might play it out with the poisonous protein “ricin”.
ricin is a poisonous protein
we could try to make a vaccine against ricin, using ricin
we could give people an mRNA vaccine that “makes” ricin in their cells
the recipients would then have antibodies against ricin
some people who would get the vaccine would get ricin poisoning
the idea that the ricin poisoning was due to “stress” would be absurd
Are you starting to see this?
TO HYPOTHESIZE that GIVING a poison to a person, where the recipient then GETS poisoning typical of that poison, is not in fact RESPONSIBLE for causing the poisoning typical of the poison you just gave the person, is NUTS.
Actually, it’s beyond that – it’s NUCKING FUTS.
To hypothesize that there is some mysterious “stress” that causes EXPECTED SIDE EFFECTS from what we just gave the person, is so ridiculous, I could actually call upon the NIH to publicly CONDEMN major media for going along with this stuff – except for one thing.
The pharmaceutical companies that CONTROL the NIH AND the media are in fact the ones that make the poison and sell the product, and are trying to deny the obvious side effects of the poison.
WELL THAT’S GREAT.
Well, at least *I* spoke the truth.
Now – you may be wondering why I have not even pointed to a REFERENCE yet.
Well, not only is this stuff that EVERY college graduate should understand – MOST high school graduates should understand it, too.
In fact, anybody who has taken a fucking aspirin should understand this.
“If you take aspirin, and you have a side effect typical of aspirin, it was probably due to the aspirin, and not voodoo stress.”
This is SCIENCE. This is BASIC. FREAKING. SCIENCE.
It is SO basic, it is not in the literature. It is assumed that you understand this to even be able to begin to READ the scientific literature.
It is time to call people to account for these most basic things.
I want you to understand the following.
On honesty alone, I am more qualified to be the CEO of Pfizer than is Albert Bourla.
If Bourla does not explain this most basic truth to the people of the world, then he is a scientific FRAUD.
If Anthony Fauci does not explain this most basic truth to the people of the world, then he, too, is a scientific FRAUD.
I told you the truth. Bourla did not. Fauci did not.
Wherein we examine, in something like “MythBusters” style, the dubious “Magnet Challenge”, without relying (too much) on the anti-scientific crutch of scientific authority
First, a confession.
The main reason I am attracted to these videos of people sticking magnets to the COVID vaccination injection sites on their shoulders, is that I love to watch normal people doing science – EVEN IF they are doing it badly, or just plain wrong.
Second, another confession.
I have a more personal reason for liking these videos. I know exactly what it’s like – as a scientist – to look for a tiny magnetic effect with substandard equipment. To me, that is the essence of science – because our equipment is rarely good enough. It could always be better. Somebody ELSE always gets the Large Hadron Collider “LARGE EURO PROVIDER” – while most of us schmoe scientists finagle “not enough time” on somebody else’s cheap and tiny second-hand machine.
And the problem with magnetism is that some of the effects we are looking for are REALLY TINY. The entire UNIVERSE seems to conspire against finding them. So when I see these people with their refrigerator magnets, trying to come up with a definitive answer to a strange and even downright stupid, but wonderful question – “does the COVID vaccine have something magnetic in it?” – against the combined opposition of media, government, and the chumped “fake science” I used to be part of – well, I’m sorry. I am going to root for the underdogs, even though these people are almost universally doing marginal, problematic, or even face-palmy science.
At the very least, they ARE doing science. And SOME of them are doing what I would almost call admirable “kitchen science”.
Most people – and that can include me – will quickly look for an “authoritative ruling” on a scientific question. Yes, that’s GREAT – but it’s not SCIENCE. It’s “armchair science” – pretty much like armchair anything. There is very little skin in the game – no pun intended. But God bless anybody who says “Hey! Let me see if *I* can figure this out for myself!”
Skin in the game. HELL YEAH.
Indeed, I remember the last time I did some kitchen science – and discovered that – despite the LIES of PBS propagandists – masks were robbing me of oxygen and reducing cognition – MEASURABLY.
TL;DR – skip down to “Crucial Experiment” and read how you can prove to yourself that masks cause real and measurable cognitive decline that lasts long after you unmask. NPR and other leftists who say masks don’t affect you and your children are LYING. LOOK, it’s time to be blunt. Senility – Cognitive Decline – …
SO – what I want to do here – is to follow the “Mythbusters” model – a GREAT pathway into science – and “firm up” the “Magnet Challenge”.
I don’t want to decry it. I don’t want to “debunk” it. I want to make it rigorous, so that we can prove TO OURSELVES whether or not (1) people are getting vaccines which have some kind of “magnetic” component (we’ll firm that idea up), and, no matter what, (2) whether such a thing is scientifically possible based upon known science.
Does that sound fair? Does that sound even-handed?
I’m very open to this weird idea of magnetic vaccines – real or hoax. I would love to find out, one way or another, the answers to these to questions – yes or no. I take as much joy in killing theories, as I do in confirming them. And on the way there, when one side starts winning – “brake” or “accelerator” – I instinctively look for the other one to “challenge” what seems to be winning.
This is how the SCULPTURE of “working theory” emerges from the STONE OF TRUTH. Even if, as may be the case here – that sculpture could be a bit of a Fauci bobble-head.
The Plan
We’re going to do this in several parts. This FIRST ARTICLE will concentrate on the Magnet Challenge itself.
FIRST – we look at the Magnet Challenge as has been seen in videos, and figure out (as you will see) what parts are obviously WRONG.
SECOND – we look at MAGNETISM ITSELF – to get some background on what we need to know to FIX the Magnet Challenge. We want to be comfortable with magnetism before we get down to business.
THIRD – we look at how the Magnet Challenge might actually be fixed. We will only get part-way into that.
In the SECOND ARTICLE, coming in a week or two, we look at “making it real” – and ask a crucial question. Are “magnetic vaccines” even possible? And bigger still – are there ANY “magnetic injections” that people with an agenda might try to implement?
You will be shocked.
Magnetism – which is a bit like the kid sister of electricity – is very much like one of the young female characters in a modern “X Men” saga. She’s under-rated and under-appreciated – until she saves everybody’s ass. I personally think magnetism is beautiful – almost to the point of prejudice. Yeah, if somebody finds convincing evidence of a SORDID, wart-like, unbecoming, magnetic monopole, I will let it convince me. But until then, as far as I’m concerned, the magnetic monopole is sacrilege on the order of gay Jesus porn movies where THE VIRGIN AIN’T. Ugly, wrong, and needless. GROW UP!
Now – I’m not going to get into the theory of magnetism itself, because that is quite unnecessary for the task at hand. Steve is doing a marvelous job explaining (1) mass, force and gravitation, (2) velocity and momentum, (3) energy and potential, and (4) introductory electromagnetism. What I’m doing here is leafing off all of that in a very shallow way, into the magnetism of materials – just a wee bit – so that we can look more critically at how to do science honestly.
We are going to see if – just using GOOD kitchen science – we can figure out how to make BAD kitchen science be a thing of the past.
To quote my new favorite video…..
“Don’t reboot it – just patch!”
Magnet Challenge Videos: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
THE BAD
The FIRST “Magnet Challenge” video that I saw was one of the best examples of “bad science” that I have seen in a long time. “Spock wept”, to put it bluntly.
This is the one where the black-masked, “zaftig”, blonde woman appears to be at home in front of her big-screen television set, having just gotten the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, and “tries” to stick a magnet to both shoulders – first the shoulder in which she got the injection, then the other.
It’s very hard to find this or other videos now, because anti-science, pro-authoritarian, Menshevik Soviet diaper-CEO YouTube has hidden most of them. Even Rumble seems to have hidden most of their Magnet Challenge videos. I did find a source video that includes footage from the original, but I’m saving most of that for below. You will see the video in its entirety then.
Instead, here are some stills. First, the lady showing off the vaccinated arm, with the magnet sticking to the injection site.
Next, the other arm, right before she lets go, and the magnet falls off.
It is immediately obvious to anybody with ANY exposure to science that this woman does NOT, in fact, perform this test in an “equal” way on her two arms. Now I’m not saying that she didn’t observe some difference – that the magnet didn’t behave differently between the two shoulders. What I’m saying is that she didn’t give the shoulders an “equal chance” to either stick or fail.
Is it deception? Is it self-deception? We don’t need to know yet. All we need to know, is that it’s not science.
There is a LIST of differences that can be seen in the video.
To begin with, the lady’s vax arm is held at an outward angle, though toward the camera, making the relaxed angle hard to see. In contrast, her non-vax arm is held in tightly and more nearly vertical at the shoulder, with her forearm across her abdomen.
Next, you can see in the second picture above, that she depresses the “non-vax” magnet with her index finger, guaranteeing that there will be a spring force when she releases it – and yes there is, as she very quickly pulls her finger away, and the magnet flies off.
In contrast, she “babies the magnet” on the vax side, gently holding it up with the middles of several fingers, NOT at the tips, and moving it around AND pressing it lightly and repeatedly for several seconds until it takes hold and STAYS. When it finally sticks to her satisfaction, she lets go gingerly.
This is where I want to STOP THE FILM and talk about how minor of an effect she is presumably looking for. You can literally see how TINY it is by the fact that she’s “babying the magnet” on a shoulder that is less than vertical.
What she is doing is trying to demonstrate an opposition of at least 3 forces:
possible minor magnetism
guaranteed reliable gravity
variable “surface forces”
We all understand that “smooth objects may stick temporarily to skin” – right? Every child who has played around in the bathtub realizes that even a bit of moisture can increase this effect, too. I am not going to get into what those surface forces may be, although they are, down deep, “minor electrostatic” in nature.
“Things stick to things”, shall we just say. Not much, always, but quite a bit, sometimes.
Given this fairly large “minor” effect, plus the reliable effect of gravity that varies with angle, we are not being honest if we FAVOR or DISFAVOR either of those effects – gravity or surface attractions – and also spring forces – on one arm versus the other, while using a metric of “falls off or doesn’t fall off”.
She did NOT give it a fair test.
Now – before we go arguing about whether or not there could STILL BE a real effect here, despite her clear BIAS toward “magnetic vaccination”, let’s look at some AWESOME kitchen science.
This kitchen science does NOT disprove magnetic vaccinations. What it DOES do is disprove the simplest forms of the Magnet Challenge as being sufficient to prove magnetic vaccination. It is a subtle point, but one that we must keep in mind if we’re being honest and unbiased.
This brilliant “disproof” of the sufficiency of the “Magnet Challenge”, very ironically, was being BLOCKED by the “Brave” browser. While they stopped censoring THIS video, I’m uncertain if they’re still censoring others.
Not only am I incredibly disappointed in the obvious censorship by Brave – I’m delighted to have in hand an example of why censorship of people TRYING to find the truth is always wrong.
I *delight* in using error to show truth – it’s one of THE BEST WAYS to make people smarter. And yet, the CEOs of Brave and YouTube – obviously intelligent people – engage in such censorship. This is what socialism does. People may not think they’re socialists, but they will carry socialist memes like pack animals – as fervently and reliably as if they were committed socialists. Even “anti-socialists” do this, when they behave as controlled opposition.
Here is the video – maybe it will work with your browser. Like I said, it’s working with Brave now.
Now, I’ve included that embed code just on the off chance that your browser will show the video, but if not, then first, here is a picture of Brave blocking the video…..
Now – let’s look at two stills from the video.
First, we see where a guy has “stuck” a key to a place on his arm that is almost certainly unvaccinated – just above the inside of his wrist.
This is all quite brilliant for multiple reasons. He shows the key, and it is a familiar, cheap, non-steel, light metal, probably mostly zinc or aluminum alloy, key. These are never attracted to a magnet, nor can they be magnetized. They ARE light enough to demonstrate surface forces as being comparable to gravity. Best of all, by using a KEY, which will tend to “torque off” if the key is not pointing “down with gravity”, he can show to some extent the direction “down” in the video,
As seen in the video, surface forces are comparable to gravity. This means that if we state, for the vertical axis (think about Steve’s lessons here), that…..
MF + SF >= GF
[magnetic forces plus surface forces UP must be greater than or equal to gravitational forces DOWN]
…..as a condition of testing for the presence of magnetic forces, then we have just shown that this method cannot be used to show the presence or absence of magnetic forces.
SURFACE FORCES ALONE CAN ACCOUNT FOR RESISTANCE TO A FALL.
And it gets better.
Yes. He actually takes it past vertical – demonstrating that the surface forces are SO STRONG that they can resist a certain amount of “peeling force” by gravity.
Thus, we are DONE.
The Magnet Challenge is NOT sufficient to tell us if people got a “magnetic vaccination”.
THE EXPERIMENT MUST BE MODIFIED OR REPLACED.
And YES – we will get to that in a minute. But first…..
THE UGLY (YET BEAUTIFUL)
Remember that I found a stashed version of the first video of the blonde lady on Bitchute? That bigger stashing video was actually an episode of Del Bigtree’s The Highwire show, with host Jefferey Jaxen, and reporter Carmen Estel of “Mom on the Street”.
In addition to Jefferey providing a good short compilation of some of the prior videos, Carmen actually wandered out onto Laguna Beach and tested a variety of young people. She got 15 people who had gotten vaccines to try the magnet test on their injection site. Out of 15 people, for 6 the magnet “stuck” and for 9 it “did not”.
Go ahead and watch – see what you think.
It was ALMOST good science – but not quite. The attempt was beautiful, but it was still a bit ugly.
The one thing that would have made this experiment actually meaningful, would have been to do a CONTROL EXPERIMENT on the NON-VACCINATED ARM of each participant.
This would NOT have made the experiment perfect, or even good – it would have made it BETTER.
And THAT is where we need to go next. How could we test for a “magnetic vaccine” using “kitchen science” if we really wanted to “do it right”?
Let’s go MYTHBUSTERS.
MythBusting Magnetism and The Human Body
MythBusters is a fascinating part of “Fake Entertainment” that looks at “urban legends and myths” and tries to see if (1) the legends and myths are true, and (2) if not, can the legends and myths be MADE TO BECOME TRUE by “improving” the myth, using better, smarter, or more modern technology.
MythBusters is still a part of “fake science” – mostly by omission. The MythBusters team is not allowed to pursue certain topics or answers, due to pressure by government, industry or activist groups.
Don’t believe me? Try this.
Thus, certain myths are allowed to be debunked, but others are maintained by omission. Most of all, TRUE “myths” are kept in “myth status” by not allowing them to be examined. This is a key part of “fake science”.
Nevertheless, MythBusters does wonders for science. Most of all, the show promotes the true scientific foundation of free and honest inquiry by “normal people”. And while THEY cannot pursue everything, WE (almost) CAN.
We will begin OUR “mythbusting” of vaccine magnetism with even greater freedom than MythBusters, because we will pursue truth regardless of the desires of government, industry, and activist groups.
Let’s start with MRI – Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
One of the most important things you can realize about strong magnetic fields, like those in an MRI machine, is that their danger profiles for metal objects VARY with the SIZE, the COMPOSITION, the SHAPE, and the PLACEMENT of the metal objects.
BIG iron and steel objects like oxygen tanks and floor polishers are extremely dangerous, because they have a lot of IRON and a lot of weight. The forces produced upon them by a strong magnetic field are tremendous. A human being holding onto the object, or in the way of it, is in great danger.
Intermediate sized objects – especially guns – pose intermediate dangers. They tend to get yanked from holsters and fly against the machines, where they can’t be removed until the machine is turned off.
Smaller FREE objects can become missiles, by the field doing WORK on them, to accelerate them to dangerous velocities.
https://youtu.be/ug3e9W5H0jI
You see that title – “WHY ABSOLUTELY NO METAL SHOULD ENTER AN MRI ROOM”? Well, I’m here to tell you, it’s not true. MRI technicians DO let metal into MRI rooms – they are just VERY CAREFUL about what metal goes in and comes out. You will see.
In fact, on the other end of the spectrum, a small implanted metal object – depending upon the SHAPE and LOCATION in the body – may not be dangerous at all. This is why MRI techs ask very detailed questions about possible internal metal objects.
Thus, when “Mythbusters Kari” was injected with an RFID tag containing a ferrite-core antenna, and was stuck into an MRI machine, the tag was NOT heated up, nor was it ripped out of her. In fact, she didn’t notice anything.
This is because the ferrite in the antenna is smaller than a grain of rice, and it is located inside a strong object, located in a structurally strong part of the human body. The total magnetic force on the object, even under a huge magnetic field, is miniscule compared to the weight of a human arm or leg, or to the strength of human skin, flesh, and bone. The small object is happy to remain exactly where it is, without pain or injury.
Even older pacemakers can be happy in older MRI machines, when run properly.
I was surprised to learn, when I got an MRI, that I could NOT wear a necklace, but I could wear my wedding ring, regardless of material. If you think about it, this makes sense. One object (the wedding ring) was slightly outside the machine – the other (the necklace) would not have been. One object (the wedding ring) was firmly held in place by a heavy body part which normally withstands strong forces – the other was not. One object (the necklace) had the potential to fly around and break or tear under the field – the other did not.
Note that both the MRI machine itself AND the little ferrite-core antenna illustrate an important yet very simple principle of magnetism – the idea that “bringing lots of little magnets together” creates a stronger and stronger field. That works in reverse, too. Break the magnet apart, into separate smaller magnets, and the field of each gets weaker and weaker.
The implications here are simple, and are directly related to the experience of MythBuster Kari, who had a SINGLE UNIFIED magnetizable body placed within her. One little “big” magnet.
A REAL “magnetic vaccine” is going to experience no more force than an RFID with a ferrite core antenna, in terms of reacting to a larger magnetic field. Nobody who got a COVID vaccine, even if it was chock full of iron or ferrite nanoparticles, is going to experience anything “ripping out of them” in an MRI – much less next to a rare earth refrigerator magnet. The real question is whether EITHER a real magnetic vaccine or a small magnet placed next to it would experience any visible force AT ALL.
Thus we KNOW that we should expect a VERY SMALL FORCE IF ANY, from ANY type of “magnetic” vaccine. It’s not going to be “magnetically dangerous”.
Yes – a steel razor blade embedded next to one’s aorta might be one thing under an MRI. But small, blunt, magnetizable implants, located in “safe” places where they are strongly supported, are not going to be trouble.
This means that if we are dealing with a SMALL PERMANENT MAGNET – even a small but powerful rare earth magnet – instead of the MRI machine, we are not going to expect a HUGE reaction with any kind of metal under somebody’s skin, or bigger still, if it’s deep in their arm muscle.
And further still – if it is a SMALL effect, we need to start asking EXACTLY HOW SMALL? Is it even going to be visible?
AH – now we’re ready to do REAL SCIENCE. More or less. We will start off with some background, and then get increasingly into “kitchen physics”.
Real Fieldwives of Magnetism
You may not realize it, but pretty much everything reacts to a magnetic field. Most people are only familiar with what reacts VISIBLY to a magnetic field – that being certain objects containing iron, as well as those containing a few less common elements with similar “ferromagnetic” properties
But the truth is, anything with charged parts somewhere in it, on it, or around it, can react with a magnetic field – and EVEN the lowly, fundamental, neutral neutrino, MAY interact with magnetism, by non-standard mechanisms – making the potential magnetic properties of neutrinos a field of study – and (IMO) much more likely to be real, than the horrid chimera of broken theory known as the magnetic monopole.
I don’t want to get too deeply into the kinds of ways that matter responds to magnetic fields, because one really can’t do it without leaning heavily on more obscure aspects of quantum mechanics, but several classifications of response are very useful in understanding what is going on.
Ferromagnetism – is the familiar response of IRON, many types of steel, adjacent metals cobalt and nickel, and other substances like magnetite (lodestone) or chromium dioxide, which can be MAGNETIZED to some degree. These are substances which REALLY LIKE to be in a magnetic field, and to even form permanent magnets themselves.
Paramagnetism – is the property of many elements and substances which have what are called “unpaired electrons”. It is in the same direction as ferromagnetism – meaning such things LIKE to be in a magnetic field. However, paramagnetism is MUCH weaker than ferromagnetism. In fact, it is very difficult to measure, sometimes, because TINY ferromagnetic impurities and contaminants can and will throw off measurements of paramagnetic substances.
Diamagnetism – is the property of things with fully “paired” electrons. It is the “default” magnetism of most things in this world. It is generally extremely weak, and it OPPOSES a magnetic field. Thus, diamagnetic substances want to LEAVE a magnetic field. They repel either end of a magnet – although weakly. Diamagnetism is also difficult to measure properly because of ferromagnetic and paramagnetic impurities.
Now – I want to take a small DETOUR into diamagnetism.
Visible Diamagnetism
Except for a few geeks here, most of you have probably never seen visible diamagnetism before. You could even call it “anti-magnetism”. The reason most have never seen it, is not only because it is weak, but also because unlike common visible [ferro]magnetism, which only needs one common element – IRON – simple visible diamagnetism with objects requires MORE – in most cases THREE more elements. In what follows, we will be seeing very powerful iron-boron-neodymium magnets being repelled by bismuth and graphite – two substances with so much diamagnetism, it can become easily visible.
Here is a beautifully simple demonstration of how water – which is weakly diamagnetic – is repelled by a magnetic field – in this case provided by a strong, modern, permanent Nd-Fe-B magnet.
There are very cool videos of something called diamagnetic levitation. Sometimes these are actually demonstrations of “diamagnetic repulsion being used to stabilize magnetic levitation“. There is a difference, and I want you to understand it. I find that understanding the differences HELPS to understand magnetic effects in general – both diamagnetism and paramagnetism/ferromagnetism.
Here is a table-top demonstration of PURE diamagnetic levitation.
This is a diamagnetic substance – the graphite in an ordinary pencil lead – being pulled down by gravity into a strong magnetic field generated by powerful diametrically magnetized permanent magnets. As the graphite is pulled down, the diamagnetic response of the material increases until it balances gravity. This is simple, pure, diamagnetic repulsion from a magnetic field.
Now, let’s see what one can do with that in a laboratory.
Yes. That frog experiment led to an IgNobel Prize, but the same investigator later got a Nobel Prize for his investigation of a diamagnetic champion – graphite – which he was able to reliably study as 1-layer-thick graphene – which substance is changing the world.
Better yet, this frog experiment is explained as part of a VERY nice explanation of the different kinds of magnetism:
Now – there are also some great pictures and videos of diamagnetic substances “floating” above strong ferromagnets.
Here is a video of it – again – pure diamagnetic levitation – resistance to falling into a magnetic field.
There are other much cooler pictures, however, that are NOT ALWAYS pure diamagnetic levitation. The following three pictures show permanent magnets floating above highly diamagnetic “pyrolytic graphite”. These pictures MAY BE somewhat pure diamagnetic levitation, but it is likely that they are using a “lifter magnet” somewhere above the picture – not only to lift the floating magnet to some extent, but to help stabilize it from moving off the center of the diamagnetic surface.
To understand that physics, go HERE, to the video below, for a great amateur demonstration.
What you will see is diamagnetic repulsion being used to stabilize magnetic levitation.
What this apparatus does is create a little energetic valley between the bismuth poles. Magnetic levitation wants to pull the little magnet up to the bigger magnet above – but diamagnetic repulsion fights against both gravity going DOWN and the magnetic attraction going UP. At just the right amounts (a small range) of magnetic force UP, everything balances in stable levitation.
It’s not as easy to SEE the diamagnetic repulsion / levitation in this case, but again, there are three forces involved – gravity, magnetic attraction, and diamagnetic repulsion.
In the pencil lead demonstration, gravity forces the diamagnetic substance down into the magnetic field until the opposing diamagnetic repulsion balances gravity, creating stable levitation. Similarly for the graphite disk floating over the array of cube magnets.
In this last demonstration, that same sort of repulsion, in reverse, happens at the bottom bismuth plate, but to get better “lift”, the floating magnet is both lightened and center-stabilized by a lifter magnet. A SECOND bismuth plate keeps the floating magnet from going UP to the lifter magnet.
Though if you hanker for the beautiful simplicity of PURE diamagnetic levitation, click this link for 2 awesome videos and 5 images.
NOW – back to REAL LIFE and the question of “magnetic vaccines” – but passing through MORE considerations of different “magnetic” substances.
Visible Paramagnetism
Most “refrigerator magnets” available until recently have been ferrites – which are ferromagnetic ceramics similar to magnetite (lodestone). They are fairly strong ferromagnets, but nothing extraordinary. However, more and more, refrigerator magnets are now neodymium-iron-boron, a.k.a. neodymium magnets. Those are the little, very powerful magnets.
In the above photo, bigger and stronger neodymium magnets are being used to ATTRACT copper (II) sulfate (a.k.a. cupric sulfate) on a balance beam, turning the beam TOWARD the magnet, because cupric sulfate is net PARAMAGNETIC. On the other hand, the same magnets will REPEL the bismuth, which is net DIAMAGNETIC, and make the balance beam rotate AWAY from the magnets. Note that the coinage metals – copper, silver and gold – are all diamagnetic, although less so than bismuth. However, many other metals, if not ferromagnetic, are still paramagnetic. Aluminum, for example, is paramagnetic.
I will show you a great video of the above experiment in just a moment. But before that, I want to encourage YOU to do some science.
Do you have any of those really strong little magnets? (CHECK #1)
Do you have any bismuth bird shot? (CHECK #2D)
Do you have any pencil leads? (CHECK #2D)
Do you have any iron supplements in capsules or pill form? (CHECK #2P)
Do you have any copper sulfate crystals (root killer granules)? (CHECK #2P)
Do you have any magnesium or calcium supplements? (CHECK #2d)
Do you have any multivitamins with or without iron? (CHECK #2dp)
If you answered YES to question 1 and any of questions 2 with CAPITAL LETTERS, then you can actually do the same experiment on your kitchen counter, without a fancy apparatus. What you are doing IS an experiment just like the Magnet Challenge, only you are READY for very small effects, and have SOME IDEA of what a positive or negative result will look like. Questions 2 with small letters are going to be control experiments.
First of all, be careful with the iron supplements and the copper sulfate. Both are mildly poisonous! Keep iron supplements away from kids, especially. Please handle copper sulfate carefully, too. Avoid touching the crystals, and wash your hands or anything that touches it.
What I simply want you to do is to very carefully and gently “dog” each of these things – pills, capsules, crystals, pencil lead, bismuth bird shot – on a FLAT, SMOOTH, LOW-FRICTION SURFACE – like a clean kitchen counter-top or glass range – with a neodymium magnet. Bring the magnet close – closer – closer still – and see what happens.
SPOILER: I will discuss the results below. Do the experiment now, or after the video below.
Here is the GREAT video that shows you what forces to expect.
SPOILER – are you ready?
Don’t look yet!
Don’t look yet!
Don’t look yet!
Don’t look yet!
Don’t look yet!
You should see some attractive motion with the iron supplements and the copper sulfate crystals. NOT MUCH, but enough to realize that YES – paramagnetism is REAL, and careful kitchen science will reveal it. And if your magnets are strong enough, you may even see repulsive diamagnetism from the bismuth and the pencil lead.
You will most likely NOT see any motion of the controls – the magnesium or calcium supplements, or the multivitamins. All of these will be mostly diamagnetic, although it is possible that the iron-containing multivitamin may be weakly paramagnetic overall. I could not get mine to budge.
Can you think of any other things you could test? Metal salts are likely to be either invisibly diamagnetic or visibly paramagnetic. Metals themselves are likely to be paramagnetic, although some are diamagnetic. Certain ROCKS are actually ferromagnetic – notably jasper and serpentine – due to the presence of ferromagnetic iron oxides. They will be strongly drawn to a magnet.
You can always TEST things and then look up the magnetic susceptibility of whatever you just tested on the internet. This will prevent any BIAS from creeping in.
Now – where does this leave us?
Well, we’ve seen what these small but powerful magnets do with diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances, and it’s NOT MUCH.
What about ferromagnetic substances?
Visible Transdermal Ferromagnetism
We are now starting to get very close, conceptually, to the “Magnet Challenge”. We are getting used to the idea of very weak forces, and the difficulties in detecting them – particularly with CRAPPY EQUIPMENT.
If you are already thinking “What I saw with iron supplements – barely rolling or sliding on a countertop when a strong magnet got really close – no WAY would I be able to see THAT little force moving a much heavier MAGNET on somebody’s shoulder”, then you are now beginning to realize that the Magnet Challenge is being challenged. But it’s still not disproven by any means. Because NOW we will bring in ferromagnetism – which is much stronger than paramagnetism.
Watch THIS video to begin to see forces that COULD not only move, but maybe even hold up a magnet.
Note that this guy’s implanted magnet is UNDER THE SKIN – not deep in muscle. That would make a HUGE difference in terms of any magnetic test. We can’t be definitive about the “Magnet Challenge” at this point, because we don’t know the strength of the fields from the test magnets, the types of magnetic substance allegedly deposited, or the depth, but we DO know that the depth matters – a LOT.
Now – the first thing that probably surprised you is that he found that much “iron” in sand. That iron is not IRON METAL per se – or at least not much of it is metal. It is mostly RUST (Fe2O3) and MAGNETITE (Fe3O4). If you’ve ever panned for gold, then you know that sand of all kinds contains a LOT of “black sand” – magnetite – and THAT is probably most of what he had on his finger in the video.
Magnetite – like lodestone – is an example – a NATURAL example – of a ferrite – a mineral or ceramic metal oxide where the metal is mostly or completely IRON.
SO – we can now begin to think that IF a vaccine deposited a FERROMAGNETIC substance – IN ENOUGH QUANTITY – and close enough to the skin – then MAYBE it could visibly affect a magnet brought close to the skin.
Now – before I got “geeky” on this, I simply tried a test. Yes – *I* tried the Magnet Challenge. It’s true, I never got a COVID vaccine, but I get lots of vaccines in my shoulders. Maybe one of THEM was injecting me with something magnetic. It was worth a test – right?
I can tell you this much. As far as I can tell, NO SHOT in my vaccination history has deposited anything in EITHER ONE of my shoulders, which interacts “human-detectably” with my neodymium refrigerator magnets. These are the SAME MAGNETS that can demonstrate the paramagnetism of iron supplements – both ferrous sulfate and ferrous glycinate. But if I “baby” the magnets on my shoulders – all over – I get nothing perceptible.
Now – granted – my fingers are not, in my scientific opinion, sensitive enough to pick up a paramagnetic effect like the drawing of the neodymium magnets to the iron supplements. Thus, my touch would not pick up too weak a ferromagnetic effect on a neodymium magnet. Likewise, my eyes are not sensitive enough to see those magnets reacting in an equal and opposite way to the iron supplements. But maybe they could pick up something stronger.
An easy way to see how neodymium refrigerator magnets react with a small amount of a ferromagnetic substance is to use a standard household staple. Unlike construction staples you get at Lowes, or office staples you get at Staples, household staples are fairly small. A box of 5000 of them weighs 0.38 pounds, including the box. Ignoring our allowed deduction of the paper box weight (we’re generous), that works out to 34.5 (heck, let’s call it an even 35) milligrams per staple.
The staple is made of zinc-coated steel, with the steel being mostly iron and carbon. But we’ll be generous, and pretend like it’s ALL IRON.
Thus, we are going to attribute whatever we see that staple do, to 35 mg of iron, when it could be a smaller amount of iron and even stronger. We’re being CONSERVATIVE in gathering our “expectations of metallic iron as normal, magnetic steel”. But you will still see that the rough numbers are very powerful.
First of all, let’s look at why I was so delighted that the staple comes in at around 35 mg. It turns out that my exemplary iron supplements contain roughly 30 or 60 milligrams of elemental iron, as either ferrous bis(glycinate) or ferrous sulfate, both paramagnetic. Thus, the amounts of iron are comparable, and we can compare the differences in forces between paramagnetic and ferromagnetic iron DIRECTLY, without adjusting the scale.
First, let’s look at MAX MAGNETISM.
If you let the magnet approach the staple, the staple will FLY TOWARD THE MAGNET at a distance of roughly 1.5-2.0 centimeters – basically 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch. Once in contact with the magnet, the staple is strongly held.
How strongly? Well, we can actually measure that. The staple, stuck through a sheet of A4 paper (comparable to 8.5 x 11), will easily hold the single sheet of paper against gravity. Will that scale up? First, I tried 10 sheets – NO DICE – gravity wins. But if I tear off sheets of paper slowly, at 8 sheets of A4, my neodymium magnets will still hold all that paper against gravity through the attraction of a SINGLE staple.
If I weigh those 8 sheets, it comes out to between 30 and 40 grams on a cheap postal spring scale. Let’s just call that 35 grams for super-duper convenience.
What this means is that magnetic forces on a 35 mg staple by that neodymium magnet are roughly 35,000 mgs, where we are being really horrible about pretending that mass is weight and vice versa, “because Earth”.
Stated differently, the magnetic force on the staple is roughly 1000 times the gravitational force on the staple.
And YES – we can really work with that. Holding up 8 sheets of paper is EASY KITCHEN SCIENCE. Much easier to demonstrate than rocking a capsule on a counter.
NOW – here is the real kicker.
Wouldn’t it be great if I could put that staple under my skin and see how my magnet reacted to it? It might be painful, but all in the name of science – right?
WELL, it turns out that you don’t HAVE to “get a piercing“. You can FAKE IT really easily.
Neodymium Head Fakes and Phony Implants
Because humans have SO MANY thin places and opposable body parts, it is not hard to FAKE the implantation of ferromagnetic substances, and then actually STUDY how a magnet behaves near them.
Well, I did this, and what I found – very SHOCKING – is that it is EXACTLY like you would imagine it in the “Magnet Challenge”. Or maybe even STRONGER.
The magnet will “do stuff”, and you will go “WHOA!”
You can PINCH a staple easily between finger and thumb, so that it is more than “skin deep”, and then move a magnet around the pinched fingertips. You can be very rigorous about maintaining a strong pinch, and insure that the metal is a certain number of millimeters “deep” in the pinch. You can control the magnet to see exactly how it behaves. And you can repeat this – OVER and OVER – looking for “tells” that the staple is there.
In my experience, the presence of something affecting the magnet was unmistakable.
Want to get that staple REALLY deep? Put it on the web of your thumb and index finger, and “close it up”.
I was able to make the staple so deep that I could not “feel it there” with a single neodymium magnet. BUT – and this is very cool – with a stack of SIX neodymium magnets, I could easily get the stack to “attract” to the deep staple in a way that I could FEEL WITH MY FINGERS. I could make the stack of magnets slow down – slide more tightly – dawdle – stick – and behave EXACTLY like it seemed the people were either FEELING or THINKING THEY WERE FEELING in the “Magnet Challenge” videos.
Do you see what we’re doing here?
We’re doing POSITIVE CONTROL EXPERIMENTS ON THE MAGNET CHALLENGE.
We are showing that what we SENSE is going on in the “Magnet Challenge” videos is a REALITY – likely from years of experience with the realities of permanent magnets in home or office. We’re not saying that the people in the Magnet Challenge videos are correct, because self-deception is very convincing to others, and thus propagates deceit. But we can be certain that there IS a reality of magnetic behavior which both the people in the videos, and we the viewers, are EXPECTING.
Now – do you want to make a prediction about what would happen if we “felt up” MythBuster Kari’s RFID with a neodymium magnet? Do it! I’m about to give you MORE DATA, and then you can either change or STRENGTHEN your prediction.
That gray stuff inside the copper antenna coil? THAT is ferrite. It’s a ferrite antenna core. You can see it more clearly here, in an RFID designed to broadcast body temperature.
It’s not a HARD ferrite like your old-school refrigerator magnets, that hold a magnetization. It’s a SOFT ferrite, designed for an antenna, that changes magnetization easily.
HERE are 4 examples that you can BUY. They were selected for being small enough to fit into an RFID tag used for pets, livestock, or MythBuster gingers.
Hey, that’s pretty wild! The average of 20 and 40 is 30 milligrams – pretty much in the ballpark of both a staple and those iron supplements.
Well SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Gomer Pyle reacts to the size and mass of an RFID antenna’s ferrite core.
These ferrite cores are about the LENGTH and WEIGHT of a folded-down staple, but have a slightly bigger diameter – maybe a few staples bundled.
So what does this mean?
Fixing The Magnet Challenge
We’re now ready to begin thinking about how we might FIX the “Magnet Challenge”.
I’ve given you enough information about the size of ferrite cores, and the real behavior of staples “pretending” to be implants LIKE those containing ferrite antenna cores, that you are probably guessing – like me – that we might be able to find Kari Byron’s RFID implant by “babying a magnet” over her bicep and “feeling” for a response.
We could likely convince OURSELVES that the “challenge” potentially works, if it is ACTUALLY given the proper things to work with, by judicious and honest application of a strong permanent magnet under sensitive observation, to an actual ferromagnetic implant.
The problem is, of course, that the tiny response of the magnet to an embedded staple is just not all that convincing unless you do it yourself. An RFID tag is almost certainly comparable. Sure, you can “baby the magnet” and an honest observer may be able to tell that it’s “sticking” a little bit, but that simply doesn’t have VIRAL convincing abilities.
Well, there was ONE MORE staple experiment that I did, that I didn’t tell you about – YET. It gives away the most important “fix” of all – which is not so much at the MAGNET end, but at the HUMAN end.
Yeah, if you ask me, men don’t look all that great in earrings – and if they’re CLIP-ONS – egads. Is there anything LOWER than clip-ons?
SO, this Junkyard Wolf tried to see if he could pretty himself up with a staple earring, using his moderately weak neodymium magnets. That actually worked – although just barely – and a bit painfully, because the staple preferred to “get close” to the magnet at one end, thus pointing END-ON toward the magnet. This appears to be, in some ways, “flexible diamagnetic shaping” of the field by the flesh and the staple compromising a bit. The magnet can get closer to ONE END of the staple, moving the diamagnetic interference outward from the field, so the system does what it needs to do to reach a lower energy. With a stack of SIX neodymium magnets, the staple was downright painful, and the stack of magnets could be used to manipulate the earlobe in a very convincing way. I could actually hang the stack of magnets like a pendant earring, by letting the staple press in very close to the magnets though my earlobe.
It would have looked great on film, but – well – I’m a bit camera-shy lately.
Thus, we are led to the idea that the Magnet Challenge needs to be VISUAL to be convincing – and the visual nature needs to either EXCLUDE other forces (like surface effects), dwarf them (like moving skin around in a way that surface forces simply cannot), or show other VISUAL effects demonstrating a strong induced magnetic field at the site (perhaps by enchaining small magnetized objects like paper clips between the proposed ferrite and the magnet).
Sticking lovely Kari Byron into an MRI machine proved that implanted ferrite-core RFIDs are not “missiles of death and dismemberment” under strong magnetic fields, but it did NOT disprove that such items can be LOCATED manually and qualitatively by smaller, hand-held, strong permanent magnets.
Thus, here are some of the most convincing things that I saw while experimenting with my “positive controls”.
hanging of magnets STRONGLY against gravity, jiggling them to disprove that they are sticking by surface effects. This means “show more stick than the hanging key”. Note that even the magnet FALLING OFF from a true magnetic attraction is very convincing. The RELEASE from a magnetic attraction versus a surface stick is very diagnostic visually. A surface stick “peels”. A suddenly failing magnetic attachment “lets go”.
watching the magnet spontaneously accelerate horizontally and “slap” against skin when fastened to the end of a loosely-held, lightweight, floppy, plastic or paper “holder” of some kind. This motion is unmistakable. Suspending the magnet from a thread would work just as well (I believe Gail suggested this). Static electricity can be disproved if needed in the same video by a negative control to both flesh and magnet using paper, feather, etc.
moving skin by tugging and pulling on the magnet – NOT by pushing. This demonstrates attraction to an embedded object or objects – NOT surface forces
Now – is it possible to get even more “geeky” than that?
Absolutely.
First, let me say that normal “stud-finders” don’t work. To be more exact, they SHOULD NOT work. Nevertheless, I checked, and was pleased that Physics is intact. A common modern stud finder does NOT pick up my staple controls AT ALL – even a BLIP. This is not surprising – most stud-finders are not metal detectors. Even the ones that ARE metal-detecting are looking for steel studs and large steel nails in wooden studs. Small bits of metal like staples are NOISE to such tools.
But what about real metal detectors?
Not sure about you, but I SEE METAL. Copper, to be specific. I also see ferrites – metal oxides with substantial magnetic properties – but not so sure that modern metal detectors would fall for metal oxides, as this would cause a lot of trouble.
Arse Technocratica seems to think that metal detectors don’t find RFIDs.
“Implantable microchips are compatible with MRI machines and are not picked up by metal detectors or airport scanners.”
This does not necessarily mean RFIDs can’t be found by either metal scanners or airport detectors – it may simply mean they are found but rejected at normal settings.
I can tell you FOR A FACT that TSA-style hand-wanded metal detectors CAN (when used properly) pick up a SINGLE STAPLE underneath several sheets of paper. Yes. And not just with the sensitivity turned up to “high”, but on their normal setting.
Bottom line – I’m leaving open the possibility of small ferrite-core metal-wire antennas being detectable using metal detectors and other types of scanners.
HOWEVER – ALL of our theories about RFIDs with ferrite antennas are thrown into the dumpster by ONE PICTURE in that Ars Technica article.
This one.
WAIT A MINUTE. The needle is THAT BIG?
No way.
I consider it IMPOSSIBLY unlikely – that people getting the COVID vaccine were injected with the literal HORSE NEEDLES that are used to place RFIDs in people.
I’m sorry – there is NO WAY that monster needle is getting stuck into the average Joe or Jane getting a COVID vaccination. Not without MASSIVE social reporting of “huge needles” and “incredibly painful shots” which would – OH BY THE WAY – leave a big old lump. Sorry – THAT ain’t happening.
Look at the product:
This is where I say…..
“No way – this is not what people are getting with their Pfizer and Moderna shots. NO WAY. This Magnet Challenge is either total bullshit – or something ELSE is going on. People are NOT getting “chipped” with these big implants. Back to the drawing board”.
Seriously. Something is NOT RIGHT about the idea that people are getting “chipped”. A chip implant would be one of those little glass jobs with an antenna. Whatever is happening – it’s not THAT.
SO – if people are not getting what amount to “publicly known science” of RFID tags, with little ferrite antenna cores that MIGHT attract a magnet, what else could they possibly be getting that might still draw a magnet?
LET’S INVESTIGATE.
That will be the NEXT part of this series.
Stay tuned for Part II, in which we will examine the shocking REAL science of “magnetic” medicine, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, and how it COULD indeed relate to “magnetic vaccines”.
W
Stay Tuned For Part II…..
Referenced Discussions
We had numerous discussions of this topic on the site – here are the big or important ones. Please see them for extensive discussions and early attempts to understand the magnetization phenomenon.
Is Persistent Reverse Transcription a Hidden Virus/Vaccine Objective?
Gloating Pre-Preface
There are few feelings of satisfaction like opening up the NEWS and knowing one’s theories and understandings are WORKING even better than one thought.
Let’s see if they use this one for damage control, and get the “new science” out before the STORY OF THE SCAM gets ahead of them. CDC is lying to us so badly. SO badly.
It’s all good, people. I’m on these bastards like BLACK on TAR.
Notice that the governor’s WIFE also tested positive later. But most importantly, notice how the news never asks the RIGHT QUESTIONS connecting the vaccine to the positive test. Instead, we get LIES.
The FAKE NEWS is going along with this crap. They are so deep in this.
Yes, we are now in peak MITHRIDATISM that they wanted to turn into the MIDAS TOUCH of SPIKE PROTEIN.
Such a SCAM.
In my opinion, the CDC should be CLOSED as a CRIME SCENE.
Thank you, Greg. You are a SCIENTIST, and when you felt SYMPTOMS you forced them into coughing up the DATA that reveals how badly they SCAMMED us, and how badly they continue to scam us.
I think Fauci knows exactly what I know. He could tell you EXACTLY why this happened. And once Rand Paul reads this, he’ll know, too. Somebody needs to start cornering Fauci on all this crap.
It ALL goes somewhere.
LOOSE SCIENCE that you know and everybody else doesn’t is a MAGIC ACT. BAD FAUCI!
I’m seeing into the psy-op, people. I’m seeing so deeply.
THE SPIKE MUST FLOW. AND FLOW AND FLOW AND FLOW. It’s the KEY to the SCAM.
Once you see the spike protein CORRECTLY, you see why they do everything they do.
How much you want to bet Bill Gates is wise to this stuff?
Real Preface
I have come to the conclusion that something is very wrong with COVID-19 and the vaccines thereof, and I think I’ve finally put my finger on the scientific macguffin that ties all the skeevy, sketchy stuff together – reverse transcription.
That would be that little red arrow back to DNA from RNA.
It turns out that reverse transcription, and vaccines for diseases that might code for it, are very “Fauci”.
Learn to code. It’s KEY.
Too many things “political, organizational, governmental, and media” have not added up about the phony “plague”. Going beyond that, too much SCIENCE about the “novel coronavirus” and vaccines being offered for them, simply did not add up.
At least, not until now.
It’s not my inner conspiracy theorist which is finding a problem here – it’s my inner scientist. I am having great difficulties rationalizing certain seemingly careless choices which have resulted in some of the most problematic and badly framed medical offerings since “eye of newt” and “really large leeches for anemia“.
I am having a scientific problem with TESTING that is so bad – so intentionally bad – that it borders on the freaking Ouija Board.
And FAUCI KNEW.
It’s all the result of DISHONEST SCIENCE.
Background: “Science Is Real”
I’m not exactly anti-science, having worked in science all my life. I’m not even opposed to “transhumanism”, which I don’t think is inherently and necessarily BAD. The idea of expanding my memory without putting Google or Facebook or anybody else in charge of it? Talk to me. I’m listening.
I’ve ALWAYS gotten the flu vaccine – ALWAYS. I NEVER miss it. That’s not exactly transhumanism, but it shows that, for most of my life, I had great TRUST in medical science. In fact, I would even say I still do. Generally speaking.
I’ve had vaccines for everything I could get – even the RABIES vaccine, when I was bitten by a bat. The rabies vaccine is, in fact, one of the STRONGEST defenses of vaccination in medical history. No vaccine opponent WILL or SHOULD turn down the rabies vaccine – it is a HUGE success story in medicine. If you get bitten by a rabid animal, the rabies vaccine promptly administered against that SLOW virus will SAVE YOUR LIFE. Some vaccines are of arguable worth, but the rabies vaccine is not one of them.
Indeed, I consider myself to be something of a gourmet, or at the very least a connoisseur of vaccines. Previous “reviews” of vaccines on this site have featured my lovely assistant, Miss Direction, néeRetroculture, who helps me convince people that vaccines weren’t always questionable, and might even be good for people.
Hey, it’s not every day that I get to post something that’s not only about the unspeakable issue of vaccines, but is both PRO-VAX and ANTI-VAX at the same time. I mean, what’s the use of FREE SPEECH if we can’t use it to troll EVERYBODY – including PENCILNECK? Whoops – WRONG PENCILNECK. Let’s try …
Perhaps you recall my PREVIOUS correspondence and “review” of the new, two-shot shingles vaccine, Shingrix – or more specifically, my review of the FIRST SHOT. Wolf’s Hot Date With Retrosynthetic Dinopox Hey, it’s not every day that I get to post something that’s not only about the unspeakable issue of vaccines, but is both PRO-VAX and …
I was anticipating getting one of the new coronavirus vaccines – and was holding out for the first one PROVEN to be safe for recoverees from COVID-19, one of whom I happen to be.
My lungs aren’t that good anymore – not after COVID-19 seared them like some kind of biological chlorine gassing on the front lines in France. I have to be very careful. Another case of COVID, or pulmonary / vascular coronavirus vaccine side effects of comparable severity, might actually “finish me off”.
So – I’m SHOPPING. And I mean SMART SHOPPING. I’ve been paying a LOT of attention to the new vaccines, and trying to understand their technologies, their benefits, their risks, and the science behind them. I simply can’t afford to make a mistake on side effects. Not if I want to enjoy the retirement for which I worked LONG and HARD.
I already knew quite a bit of the science behind COVID and the new vaccines – enough that it has been easy for me to follow the scientific news about these things. I’m not a virologist, an epidemiologist, a vaccine expert, or a molecular biologist, but I’ve worked with such people for much of my life. I picked up a few key ideas in the process. I’ve also come up with a few scientific ideas and principles of my own, but that is largely because I’m a devotee of the history of science, which gives perspective on science.
If you don’t think science can be WRONG, and that large numbers – HERDS – of scientists therein, can go OVER A CLIFF, just take a look at Planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, The Great Leap Forward, and science in the Third Reich – a seminar on the latter having been quite instructive in my youth. It was not simple how the scientific masses in Germany were led astray, once socialist politics DRAGGED, PUSHED, and SCARED them away from “Jewish Science”. The top echelons of German science, filled with Jews and their friends and spouses, were forced into horrible choices, as some of the best science and scientists were politically rejected over a real social stupidity which fractured and destroyed what was arguably the leading scientific nation on the planet.
None of that had to happen – but it did.
Don’t think we’re immune from scientific debacle. We’re not. Socialism is the greatest “hold my beer” knucklehead that science ever green-lighted into a dysfunctional relationship. He’s always coming back on Saturday night with roses and cherry vodka, after the “last” last time he wrecked Science’s cute little sports car.
Science normally checks itself for errors – and it is my contention that the checking needs to be extensive – all the way out to society as a whole – including stakeholder scientists, non-stakeholder scientists, and even the non-scientific public at large. Sure, you can skip the non-stakeholders and the public, but is it wise? Hardly, in my opinion. The smaller the group needing to be fooled, the easier it is to accomplish things which society simply does not want, or which have vast intended or unintended consequences.
Yuri Geller proved that scientists are easy to fool. James Randi made that point even more strongly. And I have my own take on it, which adds pushy and manipulative politics of any kind as a RISK to science. The same “sale by urgency” which works for salesmen at the appliance store, works in science. Many of us – particularly those of us with historical perspective – saw this problem in climate science. Now, we see it in COVID and vaccines. We are being rushed into something, for some reason. The questions are WHAT and WHY.
I’m going to assume that most people reading this, have started to grasp enough of the basics of viruses and vaccines, and particularly the new mRNA and DNA vaccines, that they don’t need “the way things are supposed to work” explained to them. Indeed, if you go out, and absorb all the “mainstream” journalism on COVID – science sites – mainstream media – cable networks – your favorite non-conspiratorial “science guys” – fact checkers – explaining the way things are SUPPOSED TO WORK, you will be thoroughly and smartly educated by excellent science.
If you want, try this great link courtesy of Ethical Skeptic, one of my favorite “dissident scientists” out there, pulling us back from the current “woke Lysenkoism” we seem to be in.
Good summary of the unique structure of the Spike Protein mRNA vaccine and how it differs from the Coronavirus' Spike Protein RNA in pseudouridylyl Ψ and synonymous codon stealth.
See? Yeah, I’m a grade-A conspiracy theorist, because I told you to look at Snopes, and not some clickbait site saying these vaccines are injecting nanobots into you to turn you into something non-human.
The PROBLEM with the conspiracy theories on vaccination isn’t so much DIRECTION as it is MAGNITUDE. It’s all over-reach. Silly, perhaps well-intended, but self-discrediting overreach. Much of it is clickbait or psy-op. A lot of it is actually true – at some small level – often orders of magnitude less dramatic than the headline claims. I can talk to the consumers of such in terms they will understand, and I’m generally talking them DOWN and BACK to what are more scientifically grounded problems with the new vaccines. And there are some. Which is the POINT of this entire piece.
In this essay, I am now talking primarily to what might be called “vaccination normies”, who are – like me – normally rather trusting of vaccines, but perhaps feel like there’s something not quite right about the current situation. These are people who have SOME vaccine hesitancy, but are likewise leery of TRULY baseless skepticism of science.
I’m talking about the people who put “SCIENCE IS REAL” yard signs out in front of their houses. There is a side of me that likes that. However, there is a side of me that wants to put out a sign that drops LOVE IS LOVE (Pedo? No way!) and all the rest, and sticks to what I know about science from the inside:
SCIENCE IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC FRAUD IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC GREED IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC BIAS IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC ERROR IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC DECEPTION IS REAL
SCIENTIFIC SELF-DECEPTION IS REAL
SCIENCE IS REALLY MESSED UP
SCIENCE IS STILL BEAUTIFUL
You see what I’m sayin’? You want SCIENCE, you get the whole, lovely, crazy, smart, dumb, dysfunctional bimbo who thinks she can handle SOCIALISM, and ends up on some frat party lawn in a lab coat and a mini-skirt, throwing her shoes at strangers, demanding somebody take her home, and SHE’S NOT DRUNK.
Yeah. I knew that crazy, wonderful bitch.
Wolf’s Take on Coronavirus Vaccines
You can check out my posting history here to follow the chronology of my thinking on coronavirus vaccines, but I’ll try to recap toward my current thinking, and what seems to be wrong with them. I am going to lead you up to my last post on the vaccines, where I almost saw what I’m seeing now, plus a whole bunch of other stuff.
PREFACE I thought that I might withhold this post on Easter Sunday, and then I changed my mind, thanks to Deplorable Patriot, Trump, Gab and Jesus. If anybody ever FOUGHT on Easter Sunday, it was Christ. It’s time to FOLLOW POINT. The Branch Covidians have taken a toll, but the WAR is turning, and – …
The first news that really grabbed me was about Inovio – a DNA vaccine – a “Bill Gates” vaccine (almost all are, TBH) – and thus one of what I will refer to as genetic vaccines. Such vaccines are not supposed to work by modifying one’s genes or genome, despite the word genetic. They simply exploit cellular biochemical processes CLOSER to the genes, using the known biology of genetic expression. They dump DNA or messenger RNA (or a close facsimile thereof, to be more precise) into existing cellular processes, to “fool” the processes into creating – in the case of the current coronavirus vaccines – a stabilized form of the spike protein of the virus.
At the time, I noticed that these would be THE FIRST genetic vaccines being tested in or deployed successfully in humans. And this is where things get “iffy”. Just a little bit.
The next vaccine to get into the news in a big way was Moderna – an mRNA vaccine, again using a full and slightly stabilized spike protein as the antigen, but created in vivo via the mRNA genetic instructions thereof. While Moderna seemed to be successful in its first clinical trials, the side effects were noteworthy, frequent, and fairly significant – even compared to the notoriously “spicy”, arm-reddening-and-bicep-swelling, shingles vaccine, Shingrix. As one respected “pro-vax” scientist of my old acquaintance put it, they would have to kill him to give him the Moderna vaccine. He was definitely thinking the same thing I was thinking. Rush job, problems, keep looking.
My initial hopes quickly moved toward Novavax. Novavax is NOT an mRNA or DNA vaccine. It uses the same full stabilized spike protein strategy as the others, but it provides the spike protein AS spike protein, using a nifty little nanochemical “pincushion” to hold the spikes in an outwardly facing array, thus to engage receptors properly and at LOW DOSAGE. This is an excellent strategy that AVOIDS the unknowns of mRNA vaccines like Moderna, or DNA vaccines like Inovio or Russia’s Sputnik V.
The most significant risks of spike protein vaccines like Novavax are the risks of the spike protein itself, NOT of abusing the genetic processes to CREATE the spike protein in vivo, like Moderna. Indeed, Moderna scientists admitted in one of their first papers on their vaccine, that there ARE unknown potentials for long-term side effects with mRNA vaccines. Go find the paper – it’s there. They couch the admission in gentle and somewhat obscuring language, but the disclaimer is there. It has to be. They’re being honest.
mRNA vaccines in animals have not been uniformly free of side effects, to put it VERY kindly. We can argue about the severity of those side effects, and whether they extrapolate to humans, but I suppose we will find out now. The risks are there, and they tend to be long-term. So – in full disclosure – there are RISKS to mRNA vaccines. The older you are, the less the long-term risks matter, and conveniently, the higher the risks of COVID-19 itself. That’s a good thing. It means we only have to take the risks with those patients who can most likely afford them.
On the flip side, why the hell we want to take huge, unnecessary risks to vaccinate children is beyond me, but I’ll save those arguments for another essay. Or look at my LAST essay. Those arguments are, in part, subtle “history of vaccination” propositions that would bog us down right now.
In contrast, Novavax doesn’t take those risks. It’s a more conservative vaccine. This is why it jumped to the top of my list. An entire class of risks – the genetic processing ones – were automatically removed. As a “nothing can go wrong or I’m likely DEAD” vaccine recipient, I appreciated my better chances with Novavax.
BUT as a “real” scientist, I am not just swayed by THEORY – I love the results of EXPERIMENT. Thus, when Pfizer’s clinical trial results came out, I was IMPRESSED by the excellent antibody levels and the almost minimal side-effects. Far from being an arm-burner like Moderna, Pfizer was looking to be much milder on short-term side-effects, with stronger adverse effects being downright RARE. The large population of test subjects also implied that a recoveree LIKE ME was likely in the study by accident – and NO deaths or severe reactions occurred – definitely a GOOD SIGN for my case.
This not only bode well for lower likelihood of some kind of lethal short-term reaction due to my recoveree status – the smart scientific position would be that lower short-term risk very likely reflects lower long-term risk – and this supposition is completely absent ANY “knowing” causative reason to connect them.
Thus, Novavax and Pfizer were at the top of my list. Things were looking GOOD to take a vaccine, even if I didn’t get an explicit study on safety in recoverees.
And THEN reality started to hit.
Yes – when millions of doses of a vaccine go out, there are going to be deaths and injuries. We have a system in place – let’s be honest – which tries to HIDE the minority reports on vaccine adverse events, in order to keep buy-in on vaccine compliance. That doesn’t mean people should stop getting vaccines, any more than reports on horrible vehicle accidents OR the “hiding” of such accidents on the back pages of newspapers, mean that we should stop driving.
Nevertheless, my scientific curiosity was piqued. We DO have COVID vaccine problems now, and MORE than seemed to have been revealed by the vaccine trials.
WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM?
I repeat. Differently. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BETTER VACCINES.
Taking stock of the many positives and negatives associated with THREE VACCINES which gained the most initial experience – Moderna, Pfizer, and Oxford/AstraZeneca – I noted three things, one from each.
Moderna – side effects sometimes REMARKABLY resembled COVID-19 itself – even up to SEVERITY.
Pfizer – nursing home patients were testing positive AFTER vaccination – some dying of COVID symptoms
AstraZeneca – hematological problems reminded me of another protein hemotoxin – snake venoms
I could go into deep details about these observations, but in TWO of the cases, it was VIDEOS where the “light-bulb” finally went on. So let’s look at some videos.
Moderna: Ben Stein’s vaccination experience
As I was listening to Ben, I was stunned. He was describing COVID-19 – at least from my perspective. This was not coincidence – this was SPIKE PROTEIN.
WHOA, NELLY!!!
Note that Ben is still “pro-vax” here – he’s just CAUTIONING people about REALITY.
Pfizer: Nursing Home CNA describes correlation of vaccination to later positive diagnosis and death
This man, a CNA in a nursing home, reported online what he had observed, amidst great personal anguish about “whistle-blowing”. He observed that he had protected his elderly patients for all of 2020, but when they finally got the Pfizer vaccine, many of them just started “testing positive” and DYING. He was NOT buying the management line that there was a super-spreader – if you listen to him, he’s fully contemptuous of the idea. He was CERTAIN it was the vaccine.
I agreed with this guy – a TRUSTED SCIENTIFIC REPORTER, in my opinion. His GUT was telling him that the chronology was one of correlation. He was very likely seeing in his mind a pattern in a delay over TIME, integrated over cases, that could only be explained by the vaccine itself. He was NOT accepting the management excuse of a “super-spreader” fortuitously infecting the vaccinated, to give that same result. THIS GUY is my kind of scientist. SKEPTICAL of ad hoc, contrived, politically correct explanations that don’t explain all the facts and observations in a clean, natural fashion.
AstraZeneca: Rare but serious clotting reactions are enough to evoke CONCERN from medical professionals
I think THESE DOCTORS in the following video represent my position extremely well – the problems with the AstraZeneca vaccine are RARE, but we KNOW there is a correlation, and it is our DUTY to stop and fix the problems, weighing in particular the relatively lower risks of COVID-19 itself in younger patients, where these events are occurring.
The difference between IGNORING the rare thrombocytopenia incidences and FIGURING THEM OUT is the difference between Stalinism and responsible popular government.
I truly admire these front line doctors for their SCIENTIFIC BALANCE. Frankly, I consider front line doctors to be scientists of the highest order, just like that CNA in the video above. PRACTICE is what matters – not DEGREES.
Now in this latter case, the AstraZeneca vaccine, I dragged in what I consider a very useful analogy to hemotoxic snake venoms, but I didn’t really see WHY this would be happening – until I found something that explains ALL of these problems.
I just didn’t realize I was holding an ACE.
The Macguffin – Reverse Transcription
In March of 2021, I reacquainted myself with a paper that I had noted when it came out, in December of 2020, but had not fully grasped the significance. The authors clearly knew that what they had found was a big deal, and worded the title appropriately, but even then, I don’t think they dared consider the possible deeper significance of their finding.
Nobody can FIRE ME from retirement, so I’m quite willing to say what needs to be said. Could it be wrong? Maybe. But if it’s RIGHT, there are issues that need to be dealt with. So let’s go there.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
Liguo Zhang, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, Rudolf Jaenisch doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516
I will refer to this paper at “the Jaenisch paper” – after the main author to whom correspondence is written – not because I don’t want to credit the fortunate and likely excellent first co-author Zhang in this instance, but because there is another paper I talk about all the time, dealing with masks, that I call “the Zhang paper“.
THAT one – the mask paper – in an embarrassingly good journal – is a piece of crap – some of the worst “political science” ever – designed to virtue signal to the CCP-DNC narrative of election-fraud-assisting masks, in utter contradiction to the very data presented by the authors.
The Jaenisch paper, in contrast, opens up a barn door that I am sure both industry and “in bed” government wants closed, Closed, CLOSED.
Stated very bluntly, the paper says that the virus behind COVID-19 actually “changes the genome” of victims – similarly to, though not exactly like, HIV.
You know – that OTHER disease for which Fauci was so interested in creating a vaccine.
And not only that – the COVID-19 virus does it enough to throw off those damn PCR tests that Kary Mullis warned us about for the exact same reason. In fact, the solution of that aspect of testing – the way “test-triggering fragments” just hung on and on and on in recoverees – is one of the BEAUTIES of the Jaenisch paper. The conclusions of the paper explain very neatly certain OBSERVATIONS and scientific conundrums that were first found by Korean scientists, who were very very persistent in proving that their COVID patients were NOT getting reinfected, as the fear-mongering American media “wanted”, but were still testing POSITIVE while being NON-INFECTIOUS.
Now we have a wonderful explanation. Excellent scientific work. THIS is why I signed up for science!
The THREE-TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION that nobody wants to ask, however, is whether the genetic vaccines based on mRNA or DNA of the viral spike protein do the same thing – meaning get incorporated into the genomes of recipients. Well, do they?
Ever? Sometimes? Always? Or even just enough to make a difference?
It’s a great question! That deserves a CLOSE LOOK with MUCH SIDE-EYE.
I will say this. Even if these vaccines only get incorporated sometimes, that would make the “crazy people” yelling “OMG THESE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES ARE GENETIC MODIFICATION!” become suddenly – oddly – scandalously – CORRECT.
I find that incredibly ironic.
BUT WAIT – THERE’S MOAR. And then, there is EVEN MOAR STILL.
The Spike Must Flow
I had set the Jaenish paper aside in my mind in January 2021, as I was busy being pursued by the FBI as an “insurrectionist”, having wanted to see “fellow dissident scientist” Dr. Simone Gold speak at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. Rather luckily, I never found her, or realized where she was. Had I found her, I would have likely been arrested and all that nonsense, since she wandered, far too trustingly, into the interior of the Capitol building.
This old wolf, too wary to go into buildings – too old to play tug-of-war games – too injured to stand up to direct pepper spray – settled for singing the Star Spangled Banner at over 100 decibels with tens of thousands of patriots outside – which was an absolutely surreal experience.
But back to the story.
When I began seeing more and more vaccine problems by March of 2021, some of the possible answers seemed to point to the WHOLE SPIKE PROTEIN being the BAD ACTOR. The trouble was, I needed disease-producing levels of it. How might THAT be happening?
Look at Ben Stein. He was injected with only a small amount of COVID spike protein mRNA, but had disease like I did, when, in my case, the virus ran wild making BOTH spike protein AND more virus from it, in my cells.
The vaccine does NOT create any new virus. It does NOT have the full virus instructions. JUST the main one – the spike protein that provides a significant part of the viral shell.
Thus, the vaccine cannot create an EXPONENTIAL GROWTH of the spike protein, which the VIRUS does. The full virus creates more and more virus, meaning more and more spike protein, until something – immune response – shuts it all down.
The vaccine creates a few “fountains” of spike protein – basically “vaccine-infected” cells – but these get shut down as immunity builds. It never really gets out of control. Or at least, not normally.
So, for Ben Stein to have a powerful, disease-like experience, he needs cells that are cranking out far more spike protein than we would normally expect with the vaccine.
Well, if the INSTRUCTIONS for spike protein – in some people – got a bit upstream of just “slipping them into the print shop queue”, to where entire new print queues of spike protein and substantial, chimeric, problematic chunks thereof were being repeatedly ordered from DNA central operations, it would explain a whole lotta spike protein and associated chimeric junk being produced – more than anticipated.
And – I think I would be remiss if I didn’t consider the possibility that some of these bogus DNA instructions might be hard to shut down completely, thus providing an explanation of “long haulers” and “immunocompromised variant generators” beyond their known suffering of what can be rightly regarded as “simply” chronic damage from initial infection.
But let’s move on the to Pfizer nursing home case, and many other reported cases like it.
If we’re getting genetic incorporation of vaccine spike protein instructions at the DNA level by reverse transcription, like the Jaenish paper, perhaps in older individuals who are more susceptible to this problem, then it explains them testing positive later – and in some cases – if they can’t shut it off – DYING LATER.
Now – here is where KINETICS comes in. Kinetics is basically process flow rates. I talked about KINETICS in my LAST RANT on COVID-19, in which I began to put all this stuff together, but didn’t really put forth the totality of things until the comments section at the end of the post. I mentioned in the body of the post that the kinetics of viral interference didn’t seem to explain the nearly complete disappearance of flu while COVID was still significantly above herd immunity levels. It just felt to me that BOTH of these would shut down with greater similarity, if viral interference was the sole explanation. In that case, CDC lying to us about flu vaccine efficacy, understating the success to increase compliance, COMBINED with viral interference, provides a nicer (IMO) explanation of the observed kinetics.
Now, in the case of partial genetic incorporation, the kinetics of interest would be how fast the body shuts down spike protein production by cells without genetic incorporation, versus shutting down cells where there WAS genetic incorporation. If cells with significant production of spike protein due to genetic incorporation were not just sources of more spike protein and more symptoms, but also harder to shut down than “unincorporated” cells, and elderly people were increasingly subject to genetic incorporation with age, we might actually see the AGE-VACCINE DANGER relationship that is being seen in nursing homes, where the most elderly patients are at significantly greater and AGE-INCREASING risk from the mRNA vaccines – something we absolutely don’t want.
Are you starting to see why this explanation works for me?
Genetic incorporation of symptom-producing protein instructions by mRNA vaccines of the FULL SPIKE PROTEIN seems like a REAL WORKHORSE OF AN EXPLANATION.
And, if you’re following my reasoning, you can see that this can also explain the odd cases of thrombocytopenia in some younger patients getting the AstraZeneca vaccine.
In the AstraZeneca case, we would be seeing rare cases where spike protein production after genetic incorporation was just cranking away at levels reminiscent of hemotoxic envenomation by crotalids – or in English, snakebite, which is also (in certain snakes with certain proteins) characterized by thrombocytopenia.
I will tell you right now – there MAY be very similar cases in older patients – maybe not – but I suspect that such cases are less “systemically identifiable” in older patients where thrombosis is more “normal”, and will be more likely attributed to age and NOT the vaccine.
And here is the kicker. In all of these cases, because of the chimeric nature of the fragments noted in the Jaenisch paper, there is a certain RANDOMNESS which could be responsible for the random responses seen in different individuals and different vaccines, which by using significantly different mRNA vectors, may result in significantly different levels and exact circumstances of genetic incorporation in different individuals.
NOW – if it turns out that there IS genetic incorporation of vaccine-origin stabilized spike protein mRNA or DNA as genomic DNA, like the virus itself, then one of the first suspects for reverse transcriptase activity or induction thereof, would be the spike protein itself.
And THAT, my friends, opens up a REAL can of worms.
The Full Spike Protein Monty
Let me ask a really impertinent but really obvious question – something that Tucker Carlson is famous for.
Why are we vaccinating people with the WHOLE spike protein, or more precisely, stabilized analogs thereof?
OK – now I’m being a LAWYER here. I am asking questions to which I ALREADY know the answers, and in particular, the answers that Tony Fauci might give. Here is my argument on behalf of Fauci.
“We don’t really know EXACTLY where on the spike protein, might be the BEST place for antibodies to attack. Also, we don’t really have time to start guessing, when we can just use the whole thing. Most of the labs are modelling the whole molecule, and sharing data. It just makes sense that everybody sticks to the same model, so that any advances that one lab makes, can be quickly adopted by the other labs and researchers. If we begin using fragments of the spike protein, then results are going to be harder to interpret from lab to lab. There will be fragmentation of the science as well, and this will slow our response time tremendously. Comparison of results will be much more difficult. The timeline to a vaccine could be extended by months – even years. Maybe never……..”
See how that works? I would make a fantastic lying science bureaucrat – I know all the tricks already, because I used to negotiate compromises that result in the status quo in fake science in other ways.
Now – HERE is the superior counterargument that will LOSE because Tony Fauci is in control. For this argument, I’m a FRONT-LINE DOCTOR. Maybe I’m even Simone Gold, or one of the various doctors I followed back during the HCQ Wars.
“Yes, that’s all fine and good. But we are doctors, administering a VACCINE to patients. Adverse effects are real, and we want to minimize them. The spike protein is almost certainly the cause of much of the endothelial damage by this virus. Anything we can do to avert that damage is smart, including NOT using the full spike protein or analogs thereof. If we know the primary sites that antibodies need to attack, which we actually do, we can just use shorter peptide sequences or protein fragments constituting those sites. Modeling can make sure these fragments present the same, active, pre-fusion conformation. We can stabilize as needed to prevent immune enhancement, just like in the full spike protein. This shorter peptide approach has been successful in hepatitis vaccines. These peptides can be created quickly and formulated as vaccines in roughly the same time as the full protein. In fact, vaccine expert Winfried Stoecker has already done this, using the receptor binding domain of the spike protein, and creating a short peptide based on it. Since this technology is well-known, we don’t have to take any of the risks of messenger RNA or DNA technology. Nor do we have to use adenoviral vectors or new lipid nanodroplet technologies. Likewise, all of the advances in stabilizing pre-fusion conformation in the full spike protein can be used for the RBD peptide, so the risks of immune enhancement will be just as low. So, unless you can give us a reason to stick with the toxic spike protein, I’d say this is a no brainer.”
At least, that’s the way it looks to me.
Now, here are some interesting facts.
First, EVERYBODY is doing the full spike protein. The ONLY party that made a vaccine using less, was Prof. Stoecker, and he got in trouble for it, with the German government, because he wasn’t properly authorized, even though – well – normally he just does vaccine work and that’s that.
Second, you should note that – IF the spike protein has any reverse transcriptase (RT) activity, that activity would likely have been LOST by switching to a small peptide dropping most of the molecule.
Third, you should note that – by switching to a small peptide, there is no mRNA or DNA corresponding TO that peptide, so there is no chance it will be genetically incorporated.
By now, it is VERY clear to me, that the industry picked the vaccine technologies that it did, precisely because they were modern and untested, and they needed an “emergency” to get these technologies into use, in preparation for their big goal – actual gene therapy. But – AND LOGIC here – that does not preclude there being even MORE motivation here. The more I see this “event”, the more I see everybody getting bought in by SOME new aspect of the scam.
Using a more conservative approach would have been SAFER, but it would not have advanced the technologies that were groomed to be advanced. Even the Novavax protein-based vaccine, fairly conservative, tests the novel use of nanoparticles to assemble the pseudo-spike proteins into cell-infective starburst patterns. It, too, is full spike protein.
But again, THIS. Everybody is ALL about the full spike protein.
Let’s ask WHY.
A Feature – Not a Bug
Now – if the Jaenisch work is good – and I think it is – and if genetic incorporation of vaccine mRNA into genomic DNA also occurs – and I strongly suspect it does – and if the spike protein itself is responsible to at least SOME degree in causing genetic incorporation – which I also think is very likely – then I am of the opinion that Fauci knew exactly what he was doing in pushing mRNA and DNA vaccines that code for the full spike protein, and that he did so as a sneaky way to get a reverse transcription promoter into the human genome.
Why? I don’t really know. Not yet. But this whole thing just seems intentional in its ELEGANCE.
This is easily expressed in logical hacking terms. Fauci uploaded a stealthy FTP uploading tool into humanity’s genetic account. FIRST as a problem, with China’s help. THAN as a solution, with the industry’s help.
The idea of “uploading an uploader surreptitiously” is just elegant. It’s HACKING. Any person who ever had to “learn to code” has to admire it. And it’s doubly elegant by doing it TWICE.
Stated in biological terms:
Create a genetic vaccine for a same-same disease, both containing the genetic sequence of a reverse-transcription promoter, such as a reverse transcriptase, as a way of creating a persistent or at least consistently available presence of a reverse transcription activator in humans.
And the beauty of this scam, is that it’s “WHOOPS” played TWICE. VIRUS, then VACCINE.
Let’s enjoy it! Scenic route…….
FIRST the disease – OH, NO, LOOK WHAT BAT SOUP DID!
The ChiComs are masters of psychology on Americans. First they whip up the cultural WTF.
THEN they whip up the OTHER side of Americans saying “don’t hate on Asian cultural differences!”
THEN they pull the whole offering back, with everybody left high and dry on CCP zoonotic transfer garbage narratives, minus “bat soup”, but including pangolin “look squirrels”, when the REALITY is that humanized animal models are almost all that is actually used for this kind of viral research any more (thanks to Mary Morse for this fantastic point).
Wuhan lab. Put ALL your chips on it.
MASTERFUL MANIPULATION, and many American academic scientists fell for it like soldiers on leave in a brothel district.
THEN the cure – the vaccine – which uses the SAME genetics to get MOAR of the uploader installed in MOAR people.
And if they get caught….”OMG, DID WE DO THAT? WE JUST FOLLOWED THE SCIENCE AND THE DISEASE! FULL SPIKE PROTEIN FOR THE WIN! IT’S *** SCIENCE *** !!!”
Introduction You have GOT to see the video I’m going to show you. It’s not just what they’re talking about. It’s WHERE IT LEADS. Most of the people who watch Rand Paul go after Fauci here, are concentrating on MASKS, because that is the TOP LAYER of the argument. But THAT is the small potatoes. …
Something is going on here, and it seems too purposeful to be mere incompetence.
SO – Does Wolf Take the Faucipox Vaccine?
Now – I’m gonna tell you – CRISPR-Cas9 vaccines are coming, and THOSE are straight-up genetic engineering. Save some ammunition for that fight. But right now, I think it’s worth bringing up some PRETTY TOUGH QUESTIONS about the current vaccines.
Simply stated – aren’t things with reverse transcription activity a RISK, like HIV, and why would we court that risk in a SOLUTION like a vaccine?
And what’s with all the LIES to keep people from noticing that the VACCINE causes positive tests in recipients, “because spike protein, sequences, PCR, and [COUGH] maybe a little incorporation”.
C’mon. This is so obvious now, it’s PAINFUL. CDC is not even looking foolish. They know this stuff isn’t the disease – it’s the vaccines. They’re LYING.
Sheesh. The whole thing is an outrage.
So. Am I going to take one of the current vaccines?
Not if I think there is a reverse transcription activator coded for in the mRNA or DNA, or even if it’s just in there as PROTEIN.
I’m quite good with my natural immunity, which sadly may ALREADY include some uploading of the uploader. I have no idea if I have any genetic incorporation from the virus already, but if I do, I know exactly where any future positive PCR test is coming from.
Anyway, thank you, Kary. You were right all along. They ABUSED your work.
We all understand the incredible power the internet wields in our lives today. And yet all the big players seem to have no serious interest or ability in building an internet that provides good value, security and privacy at scale. And every single one seems to have curious founders and beginnings associated with persons involved with government agencies of various stripes.
The worst offenders need no elaboration. In the early days we loved to hate Micro$oft, Yahuuuu, and Netscrape. Now we worry about Faceborg’s over the top invasive data collection, with it even trying to contract with hospitals to get personal medical records! Their interest in collecting everything on everyone certainly should bring a smile of delight from the control freaks that want to run the planet.
In the run up to the 2020 Elections the ways in which our voices are silenced will likely be beyond belief. If there ever was a time to pray for God to place his hand on the technologies such that they serve his purposes, now is that time.
My website is temporarily offline. We've identified the problem and are working to fix it. It should be back to normal by tomorrow.
Another excessively large and questionable player, the Goolag, loves to build everything in a way that allows data collection on pretty much everything they touch.
And they aren’t afraid to use their search engines to not only manipulate public perceptions, but undercut their competition as well.
The article partly shown above, Search Risk – How Google Almost Killed ProtonMail, chronicles the year long battle by ProtonMail to get them to “fix” a problem that was killing search access to their site and product information. It cost the company some serious loss of revenues. Here’s more of the story…
Our VSG Lion PDJT has made sport of our enemies using the online media giant I like to call Twister, even using it to call out the service when it shut down the accounts of James Woods and Mary Ann Mendoza (among others). We should all be infuriated by their heavy handed ways that distort, throttle and even silence the voice of our conservative Patriot “digital army.”
I will help Angel Mom (and great woman) Mary Ann Mendoza with Twitter. I know Mary Ann from the beginning, and she should never be silenced. She is a winner who has lost so much, her child. Twitter, if you’re watching, please do what you have to do, NOW! @foxandfriends
With all that said, the hidden 500 pound Gorilla controlling much of the internet today is a company called CloudFlare. You many not even know how much power they wield over much of the global internet traffic. They have built a global infrastructure that virtually replaces the federation model of an internet run by multiple providers at every layer. This puts way too much power into the hands of a small number of technocrats.
They took a lot of heat in their early days for not deplatforming a controversial site, and in the end they did indeed remove support for the site–on a whim of the CEO. And have more recently been in the news for deplatforming 8chan.
CloudFlare founders Michelle Zatlyn and Matthew Prince But make no mistake, the concerns over CloudFlare run far deeper than the ability to stop providing DDoS protection services. Some have suggested that the addition of certain new board members this past spring, may have been a factor in the decision to join in the smear campaign (and all out attack) on the home of the Qanon message board. That may be, but you can be sure that there have been many pressures to take sides in this war.
CloudFlare is now the Man-in-the-Middle of nearly everything that is on the internet. That means they can block access to site content, spy on everything that goes through their world-wide server network, and give higher paying customers faster internet traffic routing with faster results.
What could possibly go wrong?
In the days to come, it will become more and more important to have researched and developed alternative platforms for the sharing of information and real-time communications. Tech companies are going to keep promising that they care about your safety, security and privacy. And those same companies will not really care at all…
Finding alternative comms will not be as simple as getting a Gab account as we have discovered. While 8chan was in the crosshairs of those at war with free speech and the Q movement, Gab was next in line.
The troubles they have encountered are helping us all to see where the weak points are and hopefully develop better services in response. At this stage, it would seem that we need multiple modes for connecting in the hopes that not all of them are taken out at the same time.
At this point it would seem that CloudFlazi is going to be one to watch and to keep in our prayers. I’ve been given a server unreachable error message from CloudFlazi more than a few times when trying to reach Gab.com in the past month.
We are in this to win, with the help of God.
Let’s work to get wise and to stay connected!
Think*3
Calendar side note: Today is also the beginning of the festival celebrated in India called Navaratri (meaning nine nights). It’s definitely not a Christian event, but Christians in the Indian culture do sometimes participate. Top line: it’s a celebration of good triumphing over evil. Under the hood: this is a purely Hindu festival with goddesses receiving worship as the heroines in the struggle against the demons of their mythology. As believers, understanding this holiday may help us open a conversation and offer a Christian perspective to our Indian friends.
(@EthicalSkeptic) 
